D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

[Oofta]

OK. I don't quite see how this relates to playing a RPG.

That's why I chose an example - being inspired or prompted to write a poem - that seemed to more closely resemble the idea of being inspired or prompted to write setting lore.

Huh? So do your players add non-cosmetic scenery and consequential NPCs?

Collaboration just means that we're working together for an end result we all want. In a game, our goal is to play an enjoyable game. In the case of web design? The person doing to basic layout may have ideas that we tweak and adjust when we actually go to write the HTML. On a pretty regular basis one of the developers will have a better idea on how to do something and discuss it with the designer. There is a lot of back and forth. But what makes it all work? It's the developers actually doing the work (again, collaboratively) to make the web page and back end. Without them you don't have a website. Without players, you don't have a campaign.

Perhaps a better example would be a play. The director, the construction coordinator (craftsmen making the stage and props) along with the actors are all collaborating, correct? The director doesn't act, the actors don't build the stage or the props but they can all provide feedback back and forth to each other. As DM I take the role of the director and construction coordinator to set the stage. But that doesn't mean the actors don't have any influence because this is a highly improv play where they are not limited to a script. So I have to change the stage based on their actions, come up with new direction based on their choices.

So in this highly improv play of ours, the director is there to give general direction and build the set. But what the actors do and say is largely up to them. The actors in my play are not following my script, they are just reacting to what's on stage and the prompts that I provide as a director. For that matter I'm rebuilding the set on a regular basis based on their choices as well.

There would be no ongoing campaign without players. In my games the players constantly influence the direction of the campaign. We work together outside of the game if the player has some goal or desire that I haven't introduced for them to pursue. They aren't adding lore outside of what they do, but otherwise they are in control the flow and direction of play. I may set up props and optional goals but they decide what to interact with. I don't see how that isn't collaborative, how we are not working together.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I think whole "collaboration" thing mutated a bit. I certainly never claimed that me detailing giant culture in response to player interest was collaborative world building, even though the world building definitely was influenced by the players. But the game as a whole is still a collaboration. In any case, that part of discussion got too semantic for me to care.

 

[Oofta]

So I think whole "collaboration" thing mutated a bit. I certainly never claimed that me detailing giant culture in response to player interest was collaborative world building, even though the world building definitely was influenced by the players. But the game as a whole is still a collaboration. In any case, that part of discussion got too semantic for me to care.

I probably should have just ignored the comments that started that whole tangent. But I dislike being told that my campaign is not collaborative because the word just means that we work together on the campaign. Since I'm not running linear modules, the players have a great deal of influence on what happens.

Adding a fireplace to a tavern, the player deciding that they're sitting next to a punchable NPC or whatnot has no significant impact on campaign direction. Campaign direction and how much impact character actions can have on the world speak more to collaboration to me.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sorry - was referring to the games where, as you put it, "There is not the same sort of emphasis on "skilled play" and "play to win" in games like Stonetop or Torchbearer or Fate because these games are more interested in dramatic story beats."

No worries. I'm usually coming at these things from a board gaming perspective. I've said a few times that I think the important differentiator between a classic game and a TTRPG really comes down to victory conditions; my view is that role-playing is best deployed as a means to establish victory/failure and the terms/timing of evaluation.

The question I'm always asking is whether or not any given gameplay would be good and interesting without the supporting fiction. If not, is that necessary to support the desired fiction? And then the most contentious: is that fiction good enough to justify a worse game?

I'm pretty open to pruning the scope of storytelling and/or doing significant setting surgery if it produces better and more varied opportunities for gameplay.

Don't have time to get into the challenge-based post that I was hoping to, but I saw this post by @Lanefan and then your reply to me and figured I'd get a quick post up on the subjects here. Really just two things and they're very interelated:

1) @Lanefan , Neither Stonetop nor Torchbearer are games that are interested in "dramatic story beats." This is often confused because of the overly broad "Storygames" that these kinds of games mistakenly get binned in. IMO, Storygames are absolutely interested in (and designed around) (i) "dramatic story beats" and play at both (ii) the arc layer as well as (iii) outcomes and finished product.

Story Now games, by contrast, are not interested in any of those (i) - (iii) above. This is an absolutely essential thing to understand to grok these games individually and their differences. Story Now games are interested in (iv) the immediacy of experiencing and resolving conflict-charged situation that addresses a premise/theme (wash/rinse/repeat). The fact that this play stacks on itself and ends up (hopefully) generating compelling story is just a byproduct. It isn't what play or design of system is preoccupied with.

2) The other thing I wanted to address is Torchbearer is absolutely designed around challenge-based priorities. It absolutely does emphasize "skilled-play" and a "play-to-win" orientation for the players. In fact, Torchbearer does this better and more fully than any game I've ever GMed. The only game that comes close is Moldvay Basic and 4e's combat engine, but Torchbearer's complexity + layers of challenge and duress-based calculus players must perform outmatches both of them so it is the TTRPG Top Dawg.

So why is Torchbearer such a good Story Now game despite it also being such an incredible "skilled play" game engine? It is because, at the core of plenty of challenge-based designs is a focus on the immediacy of experiencing and resolving conflict-charged situation that addresses challenge (the tactical layer). It should be obvious when contrasted with Story Now above, that there is pronounced overlap in agenda which allows for overlap in design. The thing that Torchbearer does along with this bolded bit above is (a) its conflict-charged situations address both premise/theme as well as challenge, (b) it is possessed of myriad design features that generate strategic, throughline decision-points that become the crux of play (demanding both sound tactical and strategic play and those demands are relentless), and (c) decisions around advancement (another component of challenge-based play) are also complex/impactful and steeped in "skilled play" calculus for a player.

 

[Xamnam]

Neither Stonetop nor Torchbearer are games that are interested in "dramatic story beats." This is often confused because of the overly broad "Storygames" that these kinds of games mistakenly get binned in. IMO, Storygames are absolutely interested in (and designed around) (i) "dramatic story beats" and play at both (ii) the arc layer as well as (iii) outcomes and finished product.

Story Now games, by contrast, are not interested in any of those (i) - (iii) above. This is an absolutely essential thing to understand to grok these games individually and their differences. Story Now games are interested in (iv) the immediacy of experiencing and resolving conflict-charged situation that addresses a premise/theme (wash/rinse/repeat). The fact that this play stacks on itself and ends up (hopefully) generating compelling story is just a byproduct. It isn't what play or design of system is preoccupied with.

I'm curious, it's not immediately obvious to me. What do you parse as the difference between (i) and (iv)? Given that (iv) explicitly includes the premise/themes at hand, it's hard for me to see offhand how that isn't a dramatic story beat. Is it that (i) is not necessarily conflict charged? Is that the end result and/or impact of (i) might be more obvious, or even somewhat forgone? Something else? Or just that (i) and (iv) can sometimes overlap, but not always, and therefore worth splitting?

 

[Lanefan]

Don't have time to get into the challenge-based post that I was hoping to, but I saw this post by @Lanefan and then your reply to me and figured I'd get a quick post up on the subjects here. Really just two things and they're very interelated:

1) @Lanefan , Neither Stonetop nor Torchbearer are games that are interested in "dramatic story beats."

OK. The bolded in what you quoted of me was originally posted by @Aldarc , I'd simply requoted it (via cut-and-paste) to clear some confusion as to what I was replying to.

This is often confused because of the overly broad "Storygames" that these kinds of games mistakenly get binned in. IMO, Storygames are absolutely interested in (and designed around) (i) "dramatic story beats" and play at both (ii) the arc layer as well as (iii) outcomes and finished product.

Story Now games, by contrast, are not interested in any of those (i) - (iii) above. This is an absolutely essential thing to understand to grok these games individually and their differences. Story Now games are interested in (iv) the immediacy of experiencing and resolving conflict-charged situation that addresses a premise/theme (wash/rinse/repeat). The fact that this play stacks on itself and ends up (hopefully) generating compelling story is just a byproduct. It isn't what play or design of system is preoccupied with.

2) The other thing I wanted to address is Torchbearer is absolutely designed around challenge-based priorities. It absolutely does emphasize "skilled-play" and a "play-to-win" orientation for the players. In fact, Torchbearer does this better and more fully than any game I've ever GMed. The only game that comes close is Moldvay Basic and 4e's combat engine, but Torchbearer's complexity + layers of challenge and duress-based calculus players must perform outmatches both of them so it is the TTRPG Top Dawg.

So why is Torchbearer such a good Story Now game despite it also being such an incredible "skilled play" game engine? It is because, at the core of plenty of challenge-based designs is a focus on the immediacy of experiencing and resolving conflict-charged situation that addresses challenge (the tactical layer). It should be obvious when contrasted with Story Now above, that there is pronounced overlap in agenda which allows for overlap in design. The thing that Torchbearer does along with this bolded bit above is (a) its conflict-charged situations address both premise/theme as well as challenge, (b) it is possessed of myriad design features that generate strategic, throughline decision-points that become the crux of play (demanding both sound tactical and strategic play and those demands are relentless), and (c) decisions around advancement (another component of challenge-based play) are also complex/impactful and steeped in "skilled play" calculus for a player.

Sounds great!

And so I'll ask your take on the same sub-topic I'd gone into a bit with Aldarc: in Torchbearer (or a similar-style game) does playing with integrity to character - often expressed as "do what the character would do" - take precedence even if-when doing so would lessen either or both of the conflict-charged situation or the tactical challenge?

A basic example would be a character whose established personality (and-or in-fiction history) leads it to want to avoid (or sneak around, or bypass, or deflect, or even dismiss) conflict rather than stand right into it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A basic example would be a character whose established personality (and-or in-fiction history) leads it to want to avoid (or sneak around, or bypass, or deflect, or even dismiss) conflict rather than stand right into it.

So a guile hero?

I don't see how that limits action and story, it just redirects the focus and energy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm curious, it's not immediately obvious to me. What do you parse as the difference between (i) and (iv)? Given that (iv) explicitly includes the premise/themes at hand, it's hard for me to see offhand how that isn't a dramatic story beat. Is it that (i) is not necessarily conflict charged? Is that the end result and/or impact of (i) might be more obvious, or even somewhat forgone? Something else? Or just that (i) and (iv) can sometimes overlap, but not always, and therefore worth splitting?

Honestly, what I'd love to see is a natural language definition of Story Now (and examples of games that use it), and how if differs from both classic/traditional RPGs and what @Manbearcat (and I suspect @pemerton ) see as Storygames. Something I can print out and hang on my wall .

 

[Vaalingrade]

Actual natural language or the word chaos they call natural language in D&D?

 

[soviet]

Honestly, what I'd love to see is a natural language definition of Story Now (and examples of games that use it), and how if differs from both classic/traditional RPGs and what @Manbearcat (and I suspect @pemerton ) see as Storygames. Something I can print out and hang on my wall .

The Forge :: Narrativism: Story Now