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

[Manbearcat]

Really? Gavin?

I think what @Ovinomancer meant was Billy Bob and Sammy Sue.

Get it together guys. Sheesh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think what @Ovinomancer meant was Billy Bob and Sammy Sue.

Get it together guys. Sheesh.

To unpack the in-joke, MBC here is always confusing the names of two PCs, Gavin and Cullen (hawkeyefan).

 

[pemerton]

It is utterly absurd to say it is secondary as the whole process is intentionally constructed so that a story emerges! You have characters (protagonists) whose dramatic needs are established, and the GM challenges them (conflict) then the situation is resolved in some manner. And it is not merely a process for generating story, it cares about creating a compelling one, in a sense that dramatic needs of the characters are important.

How much "story now" RPGing have you participated in?

"Story now" is a two-word phrase. The key word is "now". The goal of play is, here and now, for players to have to make decisions that express or address their PCs' dramatic needs. Doing that is the point of play.

That doing so may also produce a story is secondary. My personal experience is that the stories that result from "story now" RPGing are not very good stories. They are meandering. They involve foreshadowing that is never resolved. Sometimes the choices of the characters, looked at over time, seem arbitrary or disjointed. Quite often there is a lot of gonzo rather than subtlety.

It's easy to explain why this is so. There is no editing. Not every scene that the GM frames is unqualified success; and even if it succeeds, it's not always the case that the player sees in it what the GM had thought they had introduced into it. If the game uses fortune (dice-based) resolution, turns of events and pacing more generally can depart from what would make for a good story. Etc, etc.

Hence: the goal of "story now" play is not to create a story, or have a story emerge. It is to here and now have the experience of genuine protagonism, and to see what results from that. And as Edwards said and as I quoted upthread, the most basic step in playing "story now" RPGing is to stop reinforcing simulationism, that is, to stop asking the question what does the internal logic of the setting dictate at this point. And as I posted upthread, doing that is harder than it may seem at first blush. It requires abandoning many techniques that are widely advocated in RPGing.

But if the PCs' vessel is washed away to a different shore as a result of the GM establishing it as a consequence of a failed perilous journeys (or some such) check by the player it is? Why it matters whose hand rolls the dice?

This posts suggests a lack of familiarity with consequence-narration in "story now" play.

There are different approaches possible - PbtA games use the soft-move/hard-move framework, for instance, whereas Burning Wheel uses failure-of-intent - but those different approaches share some commonalities. Probably the most important is that the narration of the consequences of failure should address the protagonist's dramatic need. A failed perilous journey check isn't an invitation to the GM to substitute their own view of what is to come next for the demands generated by the protagonists' dramatic needs.

It is just incorporating the character background in the game and taking suggestions from the players. Everyone and their grandmother have been doing it for decades in every RPG.

No. Incorporating background and taking suggestions is not the same thing as orienting the whole of play towards the dramatic needs of the protagonists as authored by the players of those PCs.

If one wants to orient the whole of play towards the dramatic needs of the protagonists as authored by the players of their PCs, then among other things one will probably incorporate background and almost certainly take suggestions. But A => B does not entail that B => A. There are many ways to incorporate backgrounds and take suggestions that will not generate "story now" RPGing.

You don't use maps? The maps do not imply any information that might inspire or constrain the players?

The default approach to Burning Wheel and Dungeon World is for the group to draw the map together.

I sometimes use maps and sometimes don't. When I do use maps, I assume the players will write things onto them - eg the location of wizards' towards, of Dwarven holds, etc.

"Here be dragons" is hella vague. But if the player expresses desire to search a magic item from such a location, I'd assume they might want a quest containing dragons. Would it be better if the map didn't say that? If the player just said, "I think my character would like to reclaim a lost relic from a dragon hoard." Even then the player didn't come up with dragons, we know they exist in the Monster Manual, and presumably in the setting. What elements of the quest you feel the player needs to decide in order of the quest to count as player-authored?

The player is the one generating the dramatic need. An example is given on p 258 of the 4e PHB: "perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring."

Should they also provide the GM with enemy stablocks and battlemaps for the encounters?

So upthread, multiple times, I mentioned that in much "story now" RPGing the GM retains authority over scene-framing, but the principles and expectations of play oblige them to exercise that authority in a particular fashion. In this remark, you seem to display a total lack of awareness between (i) establishing a dramatic need and hence a demand for what is going to be the focus of play, and (ii) framing a scene (including the mechanical components of doing that). Are you really unaware, or just trying to make a rhetorical point?

If you're really unaware, that reinforces my impression that you have little or no experience participating in "story now" RPGing. It's trivial to separate (i) and (ii). In my 4e game, the player of the Raven Queen paladin - following an encounter with Orcus cultists in town - declare that he (as his PC) was scouring the surrounding area looking for more cult activity or locations. Checks were made - I can't remember the details. I was the one who framed the Orcus temple that he discovered, in response to those checks.

That's an illustration of resolution being "open". Had the action not been declared, the discovery of that temple would not have been framed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Your recap is so far off the mark of our exchange that I have to question if the real CL was captured and replaced by aliens in the last few hours.

Anyone actually interested in getting the exchange correct (including you Alien CL…I’m onto you…give us back the real version) can view the actual exchange in post 446 here.

Look. I have a mild fever and your posts are rather impenetrable even on the best of days...

But the original post was about that holy Grail of amazing Story Now advice in 4e, which is giving XP for players completing goals they've set for themselves.

Of relevance:

* If you’re using the term “incorporate” or “weaving” (not used in that post but used often…and I think is Critical Role 101) then the question is “into what?” If the answer is Big Metaplot or Big Setting (basically setting or NPC as protagonist or tourist device or vessel for delivering or curating story), then it’s not Story Now.

I obviously am not thinking that Critical Role is Story now. I just don't think 4e is either. But if you think player authored quest in 4e are story now elements, then you absolutely should think that Critical Role's many extensive storylines drawn from player authored backstories are too.

* If you’re using “elaborate backstory” (separate from tight backstory featuring a few statements, tags, and/or theme, often an expression of or outgrowth of Pc build or character gen procedures) then you either (a) have a high resolution conception of PC so you can’t be curious, “let go”, and play to find out who this PC is and/or (b) you’re expecting your GM to deliver Power Fantasy based on your elaborate conception (and perhaps the GM sees that as their job to deliver on that). If (a) or (b) is true, then it’s not Story Now.

"Elaborate" might indeed be a poor choice of word, albeit backstories in CR definitely are that too. But that's really not the important part. The important part is that they contain significant seeds for character motivations, their traumas, fears, beliefs, drives. They contain connections and sources for goals. So 'meaningful backstory' might be a better choice of words.

EDIT - Also note that I asked you what you’re “incorporating (the elaborate backstory) with” and I asked you not to double down on “the game” because that tells me about as much as citing “the fun.” Yet you rejected my request and doubled down on “the game” so I still don’t know what your “incorporating (the elaborate backstory) with.” One is left to infer “the preconceived metaplot + the high resolution preconceived setting + weaving with other PC elaborate backstories.” I agree that is Critical Role (along with a heavy focus on performative aspects and color, heavy curation, power fantasy, and high production value). That is exactly the type of play that a huge swath of D&D players are looking for…but that is not Story Now play.

If the inference of what you’re meaning by “the game” is wrong I’m more than happy to be corrected on this 2nd go around of the question.

The events unfolding at the table, the fiction, the whole show. What else is there? To what you're "incorporating" the player authored quests in 4e?

 

[niklinna]

I don't think that no myth or only lightly defined characters are essential ingredients for Story Now play.

I don't think that level of myth or character definition (above zero) are relevant to Story Now play. But, the point of Story Now is to explore and generate story in the moment during play, so creation of myth or character definition outside of play, is by definition not Story Now play. Doing either of those, however does not make subequent Story Now play impossible or invalid. You can have a session of freewheeling discussion and then do Story Now. You can roll dice on tables to generate myth & background, and then do Story Now play. You can all write up 40-page character backstories and then do Story Now.

I do agree that done badly a detailed background can be abrasive to narrativist play, relegating the core tensions of a character to past events rather than future conflicts we can play out, and creating an overly elaborate but static picture of the character that the player can only try to embody, rather than feeling like a dynamic protagonist that might change and isn't always predictable. This would represent a large dose of Story Before which would absolutely be something to avoid.

Avoid Story Before if it detracts from fun. But if it works for you & your table, go for it! But recognize that if your agenda is Story Now, you have some tension there, and recognize when you are and aren't doing Story Now (and whatever else you may be doing, hopefully all of which brings fun to the table).

But definitely avoid badly-done backgrounds with all tension already resolved in the past.

But I think there is a way of using pre-planned background and a heavier weight of character detail as a way of reinforcing Story Now play too.

I made a game called Other Worlds that tries to support a Story Now agenda, and does so with PCs that are defined in advance in significant detail in the form of lots of different descriptors based on their culture, profession, goals, relationships, etc. (So freeform traits rather than an essay, but a lot of them.) I feel like in my home games this gave us a really solid grounding in who the characters were, allowing the players to immerse (yeah I said it) in the situation and making it much easier for me as GM to identify what kind of conflicts and stakes I should be throwing their way. The traits as words on a character sheet that can be evoked for a bonus (or penalty) to a roll created tensions for the player in terms of incentivising different courses of action or articulating potential internal conflicts - things like being Merciful but having sworn an Oath of Vengeance, or having abilities like Betray Ally or React with Furious Anger. Simply having to say out loud the traits the character is drawing from in each conflict is also an effective means of characterisation, showing us as the audience what's going on in the character's mind and what previous events have led up to this.

Not saying this more detailed approach is for everyone, of course. But I think it is also a valid approach to Narr play that does lead to some satisfying games.

It's not just a more detailed approach. It's a mixed approach. You have a preliminary phase in which you define all that detailed stuff using one approach, and then you take that into play with a Story Now approach. Win, win!

 

[pemerton]

'Raises hand'

I have a question. If you were writing the introduction to an rpg, in which you were describing the intended game play of a Story Now game, how would you write it? What words would you use? Because if you wrote it using the language above, I think a lot of people would have a hard time understanding what you're talking about. That was an extraordinarily technical explanation. What's the "I want people to understand and play my game version"?

Take the idea of scene framing. I've seen that term thrown around this board a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen it used in an actual RPG book people read to understand the rules of the game.

You've had an answer from @Manbearcat.

I would say - write what Luke Crane wrote in Burning Wheel, or what Vincent Baker wrote in Apocalypse World.

Here's just one example from Burning Wheel (p 552 of the Gold edition, under the heading "the sacred and most holy role of the players"): "If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself."

Think about that. Really think about taking that seriously in a RPG. And then think about how that rules out any old-school module, and any adventure path. That if it is to work, it requires the GM to follow the player's lead in deciding what situations to present. That it therefore requires the player to be able to take the lead - by making suggestions, by using mechanics, or whatever. Think about the implications for how setting is going to work, if the player is made responsible for creating interesting situations.

I think anyone should be able to see that this is not just the GM incorporating some player-authored backstory into the settings and situations they are presenting.

 

[Manbearcat]

Look. I have a mild fever and your posts are rather impenetrable even on the best of days...

Have some xp for the funny, cutting (and utterly true…we all know it) quip.

I hope you feel better Alien CL and I hope you watched the movie Independence Day.

While we (humanity) fight and bicker and war and rage amongst each other…when the chips are down we will unite against your invading force. And sick Will Smith on your ET ass.

And we all know how that ends.

 

[Thomas Shey]

. (In parentheses: notice how CoC has some similar issues, and GUMSHOE resolves them by reconciling the system in favour of high-concept-sim, eliminating the challenge aspect of finding clues.)

Though I'd suggest a lot of that has more to do with the overly binary result of clue finding in CoC; there are a lot of ways to keep some elements of that while avoiding the dead-end parts of that, without completely eliding it or going totally to fail-forward.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes - I agree, clearly dnd is not story now. My thought was, again let's say I have a linear AP and a megadungeon and I'm planning to run both for my dnd players. And as you just told me, dnd is gamist. Per OP, what does that mean with regards to how I run these games? Does it mean that the players in both groups must have the same creative agenda? Both, after all, will involve overcoming challenges, getting xp and levels, etc, as you mention.

The reason I ask this is that this is a fairly typical topic of conversation for dnd players, including on these boards (linear vs sandbox, etc etc). This seems to be a fairly important set of distinctions, not with regards to Story Now, but just with regards to different types of dnd play, to the point that answers to these questions lead to several distinct "cultures" of play (classic, trad, neo-trad, OC, OSR). Does "gameism" as theoretical term speak to those various differences in a helpful way, and if so, how?

Right, so I would say that in both cases the primary agenda will be gamist (IE showing mastery of the play of the game, D&D as Chess, basically). I think there will normally be a kind of Narrative secondary agenda in most games. Like when I play D&D I might often think of a way to subvert the whole adventure, but I might well not have my character enact that, because it is less interesting, and if I need justification for some reason, I can say "well, he's a bit thick, he wouldn't think of that." or most likely it never comes up. Maybe I am just going easy on the GM because its more fun to see what they prepped. Either way, I've picked some favored type of story over pure gamist considerations. I think that happens a lot. Now, maybe some players are more into some Sim, though honestly IMHO its the least prevalent sort of play, and is the one that is often totally missing.

So, in some sense the two adventures are similar. However, a sandbox is a lot less likely IMHO to evoke the whole "going easy" thing, as it is unlikely that beating one encounter or small adventure out of a whole sandbox breaks anything, like it might in an AP. Instead if Narrative comes in it is more likely to be in the "we go here so we can do X because that's what we're into." kind of way. Of course there may not be such an option, so its hard to say.

IME the differences in these types of play are more expressed in terms of how much agency players are said to have, and how much it is likely that there will be some degree of Illusionism, Participationism, or Trailblazing style play on the GM's part. Linear AP style games (they may not be entirely linear, but they generally require hitting a lot of the main points, often in the right sequence) clearly beg GMs to move more towards the Illusionism side of the house than a sandbox would, where Trailblazing is much more likely (just dropping pointers and letting the chips fall where they may, possibly with more pointers/hooks added later so the party can clean up whatever they missed before). Its hard not to verge into at least a Participationist GMing approach though with an AP where if the thing derails its done.

I'd note that I haven't studied this issue much in terms of game design. I'd say MOST GMs do some trailblazing, but all three of these GMing types are pretty much ruled out in Story Now play, though possibly not entirely in other Narrative forms (and in fact I guess might even be favored, though it becomes a bit hard to see where the RP is if the GM is leading PCs through their dramatic process by the nose...).

 

[niklinna]

"Story now" is a two-word phrase. The key word is "now". The goal of play is, here and now, for players to have to make decisions that express or address their PCs' dramatic needs. Doing that is the point of play.

It took me a while to cotton on to this, but it really is the point.

That doing so may also produce a story is secondary. My personal experience is that the stories that result from "story now" RPGing are not very good stories. They are meandering. They involve foreshadowing that is never resolved. Sometimes the choices of the characters, looked at over time, seem arbitrary or disjointed. Quite often there is a lot of gonzo rather than subtlety.

This is one example where critique of the terminology has some merit. "Drama Now" might have been a better name, but well, history & precedent and all that.

It's easy to explain why this is so. There is no editing. Not every scene that the GM frames is unqualified success; and even if it succeeds, it's not always the case that the player sees in it what the GM had thought they had introduced into it. If the game uses fortune (dice-based) resolution, turns of events and pacing more generally can depart from what would make for a good story. Etc, etc.

Solid point. It's more like the brainstorming stage of writing a story.

As for fortune resolution departing from what would make a good story, the handful of games I've played that emphasize Story Now usually encourage finding ways to turn "bad" rolls into opportunities for better story (or drama, at least). But as you get at below, that requires abandoning certain techniques more typical of RPGing.

Hence: the goal of "story now" play is not to create a story, or have a story emerge. It is to here and now have the experience of genuine protagonism, and to see what results from that. And as Edwards said and as I quoted upthread, the most basic step in playing "story now" RPGing is to stop reinforcing simulationism, that is, to stop asking the question what does the internal logic of the setting dictate at this point. And as I posted upthread, doing that is harder than it may seem at first blush. It requires abandoning many techniques that are widely advocated in RPGing.

And how. (Hm, maybe "Genuine Protagonism Now"? Nah.)