Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Blue_Kryptonite]

We're in the Story camp, quite firmly. When the narrative interplay is crafting a story we're enthralled with, sometimes we don't use any rules at all. In combats, the dice are often coin flips. In combats we want suspenseful or tense, the rules wake up and show us how it came out. However, the Players know their PCs will not die permanently in combat. Xena and Gabrielle were in the series from beginning to end. Meanwhile, the DM let the dice kill Valerie Bertinelli's Mom character, and her show tanked.

 

[gizmo33]

The mechanics is more than just rolling die. The mechanics are only the means to tell that portion of the story, and the DM must interpret that portion of the story so that it has meaning in a way other than purely mathematical algorythms.

I agree with your post, this section in particular. The spirit of this, if I understand it, I find very similar to the EGG quote that The Shaman pointed to in his sig. What you're saying here suggests to me that a good DM creates the story *after the fact* and that a dry, meta-gamey interpretation of dice-rolls is boring. I would agree with this, and would say that this "after the fact" interpretation is one of the ways that a DM can bring storytelling to RPGs without hurting the G.

But Digital M's statement that you quoted seems, to me, to go far beyond what you're saying here. He talks about "action points" and players abilities to shape the outcome according to their desires. He's talking about fixing the events of the game, even the random events, beforehand. There's only a fraction of the game that's even determined by dicerolling. As someone already pointed out, there's already a lot in the setup of the scenarios that's pre-determined by the DM.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You know, I've had huge disagreements with The Shaman and Raven Crowking before....

....but this is one area where I'm glad to be in their camp.

Maybe it's because I'm actually a professional writer on the sly, so I want D&D separate from my writing, that I make this sharp distinction. But D&D is a game of playing roles, to me. Not a night of collaborative storytelling (which, at any rate, could be better served by methods that are not D&D).

 

[Reynard]

Since travel to and fro takes time, often lots of time, then it will not be uncommon for characters to be gone for long periods of time. heck, one sub-quest in my last game had the PCs not get back to their "home base" for over a year, with them travelling thru three different kingdoms in the process.

And on these travels, they didn't do anything that mattered? they didn't, after doing something that mattered, stop at an inn and talk about it? No one at the inn left there are told someon else what the PCs told them?

So, no, people being gone for a time doesn't start this high level scrying and divination network rushing into action looking for tonight's news sound byte.

If the PCs in your games are the only characters with access to the kind of ubiquitous communications magic that permeates D&D, I can see how you *might* not just be being snrky here. But I doubt it.

its often slow and ponderous.

I bet.

Whether or not it matters or has impact is a different thing than whether or not people know what happened.

Or cared, apparently.

The issue at hand is whether the info about the fall of one group of disposable PCs somehow gets transmitted to the next group of disposable PCs so those new PCs can be ASSUMED to know more of the risks involved in picking up the quest.

Just because a campaign revolves around the defeat of a BBEG, for example, doesn't mean that the PCs are disposable. It only means that the BBEG remains should the heroes fail to stop him. And if he is still there, then someone is going to stand up against him, just as the PCs did. I guess if you create a whole new setting for every campaign, it doesn't matter so much.

I think part of the issue here is how you're defining 'about the PCs'. When I read a line like that, particularly when coupled with the abject derision you've thrown in there regarding 'about the villain', I don't read, "A game in which the PCs take center stage" (which may be what you mean) but instead, "A game in which the PCs are divinelyu blessed because my players might walk out if something bad happens to them." I could be wrong, and if I am, I'd like you to enlighten me.

 

[Thia Halmades]

I hate tennis. I'm posting more out of a knee jerk, "I should throw my hat in here" than any actual belief that this'll be resolved. Deep down - seriously - I think that the differences are largely cosmetic. DM/Player communication is an issue, always has been, always will be. In terms of expectations, it is the duty of the DM to:

a) explain what they want to do. They're driving, they must have selected some sort of destination. Even that destination is "I have no idea where we're going, I'm going to hold down the gas while you guys fight over the wheel." It sets an expectation of freedom and involvement.

b) Get feedback on what the players want to do. "Here's my idea for an Epic war campaign that takes place across at least five real years at two sessions a month. I need people who grasp what I'm doing within the confines of this story, and once 'training' for your characters is over, the wheels come off. Events occur outside of what you see, but what you do directly effects outcomes. Ultimately, like in any great war story, you will determine the ultimate fate of your characters, and possibly the Empire. Who's in?"

As you might imagine, a bunch of hands shot up. There's still some dithering over who did what to whom and how much impact they have, but they've already created subplots that I hadn't accounted for, and how they handle specific circumstances has specific results. As Reynard is suggestion, the world is persistent. Changes matter; actions & reactions matter (see my sig).

I've done rounds with Shaman about his sig before, and did a multi-paragraph explanation for what I do (tell a story within the confines of a mechanic) vs. what he's suggesting (plop a bunch of people next to a thesis statement and keep my fingers crossed.) He grasped my point, although he might not agree with it. But the point remains unchanged; we aren't doing things which are all that different.

Yes, I put a lot of specific thought and planning into my campaign; there are those events which are never going to alter - key events that MUST happen for the story to happen. But those are few and far between; other than the missions they get assigned, which the party deviates from anyway, I don't see much difference.

I'm telling the story I want to tell - a war - within the confines of the mechanics. Combat can kill you. Demons are bad. Big demons are EXTRA bad. So if the PCs fight, or run, that changes outcomes. If they win, or lose, that changes outcomes. I have no interest in a TPK, but I've come pretty close and it was only through the Paladin's willingness to utterly sacrifice himself to the Great Lord Polyhedron that he survived and saved two PCs from an ugly death at the hands of a Sea Demon.

As I said before: I'll forego dice rolls if necessary, but 99% of the time, dice add to DRAMA, and in a story of this scope, drama is one of the most important weapons I have in my arsenal. Who the hell cares about a massive fight your PC is in if their lives, or an outcome, don't hang in the balance? That's poor storytelling, and poor gaming.

 

[gizmo33]

I've done rounds with Shaman about his sig before, and did a multi-paragraph explanation for what I do (tell a story within the confines of a mechanic) vs. what he's suggesting (plop a bunch of people next to a thesis statement and keep my fingers crossed.) He grasped my point, although he might not agree with it. But the point remains unchanged; we aren't doing things which are all that different.

The specifics of what you are saying has me agreeing, point by point, that you on the RP side of things aren't doing much different from the G side. But then I wonder what there is to take exception to in Shaman's sig?

Seems clear to me that there's *something* to the way you run your games that requires "finger-crossed" from the G-side of things. If you're not fudging dice-rolls, then what are you assuming requires finger-crossing? If you're willing to accept, and work with the results of player choice and random dice rolls (which you seem to be), then why your characterization of the G-side as "plopping" people next to a thesis statement?

I have no interest in a TPK, but I've come pretty close

IMO you can't "come close" to a situation that you would use DM-fiat to avoid. IIRC, you are willing to accept a TPK as a possible result in your games.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

And on these travels, they didn't do anything that mattered? they didn't, after doing something that mattered, stop at an inn and talk about it? No one at the inn left there are told someon else what the PCs told them?

Ok, i think i am just going to have to let you work this one out yourself. The difference between us here seems to be that you have somehow morphed "do people know" into "does it matter" but in my games those are decidedly different and often unrelated issues entirely.

yes in my games, PCs interact with people at inns and all that jazz... but this doesn't morph into everyone else knowing how the PCs die and when. heck, as often or not, the PCs are rather quiet about their mission when travelling, especially in damgerous areas. (Well, except for the monk who tended to "take 20" on his give information roll.)

If the PCs in your games are the only characters with access to the kind of ubiquitous communications magic that permeates D&D, I can see how you *might* not just be being snrky here. But I doubt it.

they aren't the ONLY characters by far, but in my games its not commonplace for higher level guys who have access to such to spend it freely as in "hey i haven't seen these guys in a few weeks, lets look them up" especially given the long travel times. i don't recall the chart off the top of my head but the number of 9th+ characters running around as NPCs isn't often high enough in my games to assume this sort of satellite tracking as comonplace so that "the next batch" could be assumed to have been filled in on the last group's demise.

But seriously, it hasn't come up since my stories being PC based and PC focused don't lend themselves to having the new batch pick up where the other guys left off disposable heroes. if all the PCs died, the next campaign would be a new campaign, with nes stories and plots related to those characters, not a continuation of "the story of how my bad guy failed" with a supporting cast change (ie new pcs).

Or cared, apparently.

huh?

Ok you can care about what happened and not know what happened, right?

Just because a campaign revolves around the defeat of a BBEG, for example, doesn't mean that the PCs are disposable.

absolutely, its the part about saying that if all the PCs die you just pick up with a new batch is what means the PCs are disposable.

It only means that the BBEG remains should the heroes fail to stop him. And if he is still there, then someone is going to stand up against him, just as the PCs did. I guess if you create a whole new setting for every campaign, it doesn't matter so much.

I create a whole new set of seasonal plots for every campaign, or specifically, every set of characters. if they are set in the same world as a previous campaign, its by coincidence, not design.

Again, the vast majority of my campaign design, particularly details and plots, is done AFTER the PCs are given to me and are wrapped integrally into the PC background. Each major plot and most sub-plots are "personal" to the characters. So, the characters are not "disposable", as in i cannot just have them all die and plug in a brand new set of characters and follow the same "story of my bad guy and how he tried to..." The heroes aren't the supporting cast for the story of my villain.

I think part of the issue here is how you're defining 'about the PCs'. When I read a line like that, particularly when coupled with the abject derision you've thrown in there regarding 'about the villain', I don't read, "A game in which the PCs take center stage" (which may be what you mean) but instead, "A game in which the PCs are divinelyu blessed because my players might walk out if something bad happens to them." I could be wrong, and if I am, I'd like you to enlighten me.

yeah you are wrong. I have had people walk before, not over fudging, but over a mismatch between what they wanted and what the rest of us wanted. They thought three "combat oriented session out of four" was too little combat. i referred them to a different GM.

as i have said before, having PCs fail is part of the story often, so your thing about "if anything bad happens to them" really makes it sound to me like you are not reading the posts.

IMO a game is "about the villain if the pcs can be replaced with a new batch and the game go on without a step until eventually, after some number of PC batches, the villain's plot line and story is finished. I have seen Gms run such games, and never found them particularly intriguing. The Gms always seemed overly focused on telling "my story" and not the story of the characters. The PCs seem to be the guest stars around to provide the spotlight for the villain, IE the GM.

IMO a game is "about the characters" when the scenes serve more to spotlight them and their stories, where the main plots (seasonal big bads or longer BBEG meta-plot) and most sub-plots are directly intertwined to the PCs, their backgrounds, their stories and the dramatic role the encounters, the bad guys and such serve is to let us learn more or reveal more about the PCs. The PCs are "the guys we see on stage" not just because they are PCs but because they are IN CHARACTER pivotal to the outcome, and "the next batch of heroes" won't be able to just take their place like a new season of a bad TV series with cast contract disputes.

How you divined "my players will walk if anything bad happens" out of this is... curious. IMX, the players who have the most bad stuff happen to them are the happiest ones, the ones always coming back for more, and the least likely to leave. 'course, that may say something about the flavor of bad stuff i serve up. It usually doesn't involve "roll up a new character."

As an aside, i once handed a Shadowrun Gm a PC with a two page background.
he looked at me and said "don't get too attached. He will likely die. So have a replacement handy to pick up after that. maybe two."
I thanked him, took back the sheet, politely said i was not interested, and left.

I'm just not into running as player or GM in games where my pc is so unimportant to the stories that a whole new gang of PCs can replace us next wekk without a hitch.

 

[DonTadow]

You know, I've had huge disagreements with The Shaman and Raven Crowking before....

....but this is one area where I'm glad to be in their camp.

Maybe it's because I'm actually a professional writer on the sly, so I want D&D separate from my writing, that I make this sharp distinction. But D&D is a game of playing roles, to me. Not a night of collaborative storytelling (which, at any rate, could be better served by methods that are not D&D).

My point is, what is the difference? I think its moot to stay my point is not to tell a story, but it happens by chance anyway after we play the game.

Comparing Gary's opinions with our own, seems to be defining a ball and a sphere. Both are so similiar that it becomes difficult to believe that you want one without wanting the other. You want a story, but for some reason it is "appalling" to call it story telling, when it fact that is what it is. We all do it differently ,but at the end of the night a story has been told, whether we wanted to do it or not. If there was no story to be told, the game would behave more like the wargames and board games they derived from.

People play the game to jump into the role of a fantasy character. Should the person running the game not facilitate the players to accomplish this goal to the best of their abilities. I hardly think that players wish to roll dice and read pieces of paper, as much as they want a conception of a fantasy character played out in a fantasy world. They deal with the mechanics to proceed with the story of their character. Now, whether they call this a story or not is a matter of sematics, but regardless, a story is a recital of an event or series of events. Thus any actions that character takes is helping to build the story by creating events. You can't play the game without this. Now, whether a dm and his players wishes acknowledge that it is a story there is up to them, but whether you acknowledge it or not the story is always there and began the minute you began playing.

Now, whereas I believe that a DM should facilitate the story, I don't think he should manipulate or write the story, though he may do much writing to facilitate the story. For instance, a dm shouldn't script out who dies, who lives and who finds what. It may be fun by doing this you're not creating a story, you're just playing through a script. The opposite side of this coin (and I believe it to be the correct way) is for a DM to write out over rall plots and minor plots and after every session go back and tweak it depending on the players actions in the games. The players would be more fulfilled knowing that their actions and not the DMs whimsies are building the plot.

 

[Reynard]

I'm just not into running as player or GM in games where my pc is so unimportant to the stories that a whole new gang of PCs can replace us next wekk without a hitch.

Obviously, we have different tastes in gaming and a different view of what a game is about. That's cool. I was more taking issue with the fact that you seem to think a different way is somehow less than the way you play -- but it is hard to tell the difference between angry snark and a good natured joke on a message board.

My problem with campaigns hinged on PCs, though, comes back to my original reason for posting in the first place: if everything, the 'story' as it were, is dependent upon the continued adventures of the PCs, the campaign suffers -- IMO -- from a lack of versimilitude and plausibility. Of course the PCs are the stars, and I'm not into wanton meatgrinder style adventures. But if dice are fudged or every encounter is exactly tailored to the PCs or the world exists only in response to PC/player desires, it isn't complete and it doesn't feel real.

As far as replacing PCs "weekly", I don't do that either. my example regarding an overarcing plt to stop a BBEG was just that, and example, to illustrate how PCs, while the center of the story that we tell at the end of the session, aren't necessarily the center of the campaign. In reality, I tend to stay away from BBEG campaign definitions for a variety of reasons, but when I do use them, the BBEG is the reason for heroes to exist and the reason why the PCs are the heroes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know, I've had huge disagreements with The Shaman and Raven Crowking before....

....but this is one area where I'm glad to be in their camp.

Maybe it's because I'm actually a professional writer on the sly, so I want D&D separate from my writing, that I make this sharp distinction. But D&D is a game of playing roles, to me. Not a night of collaborative storytelling (which, at any rate, could be better served by methods that are not D&D).

Kamikaze,

Sometimes I think our differences are more etymological than philosophical. I think that, from a philosophical standpoint, we often agree, and it is the connotations of our wordings that fuel the fires. Of course, I'm probably wrong. Either way, glad to have you in our camp.

Reading through this thread is actually very interesting, because I find myself agreeing with both point and counterpoint in a lot of cases. Yes, it is important to describe action. But equally, yes, the action is the result of DM setup, player choices, and die rolls. Yes, I will allow PCs to die. Yes, I will make sure that there is at least fair warning and a chance to change that outcome. I am, in fact, giving the PCs swashbuckling cards and will soon be using action points as well to allow them to sway outcomes in their favor.

Anyway, very interesting stuff.

And, swrushing, your writing on this thread makes your DMing style seem quite fine. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with Reynard's.

When I run a game, I use a consistent and persistant game world. If all the characters die, the game world survives. However, I do devise plots, events, and even locations to integrate the game world with the characters. My PCs recently ran into the ghost of the lover or one a PC's grandmother....unfortunately, the PC who the thread was designed for is dead. This doesn't mean that the thread goes away. PCs have persistance even after their deaths. IMC, PC background helps define the world, as well as the stories that the PCs become involved in. I like to provide options, and let the players choose which threads they follow.


RC