Close This Thread

[fusangite]

fusangite, I don't think it'd matter if he ignore-listed me or not; he already just quotes the one line where I repeat what I think he's saying, and snips the parts where I ask him "Okay, given that, what's your point?" ... He might very well consider that "railroading", or maybe even "not roleplaying". There goes the opportunity for a meaningful discussion.

So, given that, perhaps we can have a useful discussion in his thread without him. What did you think of the metatextual play discussion from a while back? As you can see, I'm not a narrativist. In fact, my style seems to defy the Edwards categorization to some extent. I'm interested in your reaction to what I'm up to.

 

[howandwhy99]

*sniff* *sniff*
It smells like a powderkeg in here. Is there any reason folks are getting so up-in-arms because MythusMage prefers Simulationist style games? Can't this be a conversation about why people use that style rather than a battle over why others are valid too?

I for one enjoy the Simulationist style more than any other. I am just not a fan of adventures with plots where the DM knows the ending of before play even begins.

I *am* interested in learning about Bangs, Story Now (in definition), scene framing, and any other story creation styles people use. But in truth, I'd use them in a Simulationist manner.



Please don't misunderstand my point about plots before. I am not saying the world is a dull uninteresting place. Plots do exist... in the minds of NPCs, Monsters, and the PCs. Plotting in-character what to do next is one of the parts I enjoy most about gaming. I feel it really challenges my creative thinking. It places the onus on me and my fellow players to determine what happens. When we decide on a goal/challenge (one the DM may not even have foresaw) we do our damnedest to out-think our opponents.

What I don't prefer are games where Events A thru F happen regardless of what I say or do in character. Even if they are randomly ordered. If they are already part of the motives of NPCs I could understand it. But if the NPC's motives and plan of action do not take into account the changing world / course of events then it seems dubious to me too.

I know there are as many ways to roleplay as there are roleplayers. What I think MythusMage is eventually getting at, in his own Zen Koan way, is many of the current standards are not what he prefers.

In the end, I'd rather discuss preferenence, play styles, and DMing, than insult our original poster.

 

[fusangite]

I know there are as many ways to roleplay as there are roleplayers. What I think MythusMage is eventually getting at, in his own Zen Koan way, is many of the current standards are not what he prefers.

In the end, I'd rather discuss preferenence, play styles, and DMing, than insult our original poster.

Why should we not insult mythusmage if he misrepresents our views, pretends important data does not exist and states that as a matter of fact, not opinion, that our play styles are invalid, not RP and should cease to exist? I'm sorry but what's good for the goose is good for the gander here. You will notice we didn't start saying insulting things about mythusmage's posts without considerable provocation. Perhaps, as a sympathizer of his, you could ask him to observe the same standards you are exhorting us to observe.

 

[The Shaman]

In the end, I'd rather discuss preference, play styles, and DMing...

I agree - so let's...

I for one enjoy the Simulationist style more than any other. I am just not a fan of adventures with plots where the DM knows the ending of before play even begins.

Well-said, howandwhy99.

I prefer to create a set of circumstances and set them in motion, then toss the players in the middle of it, to sink or swim. I ran an encounter in our Modern military game where I had no idea what the outcome would be - instead, I created a flowchart and assigned dice rolls at critical junctures that would determine what the NPCs were going to do, with modifiers based on the success (or failure) of the adventurers. I didn't know the 'plot' of the adventure until the dice told me what happened.

It's definitely more challenging as a GM, but that's why I like to GM. And as the patron quote in my signature suggests, I'm not concerned with telling a story - the story is the outcome of the adventure, not the other way 'round. IMX there is plenty of excitement and drama that comes from this, without forcing the issue.

Please don't misunderstand my point about plots before. I am not saying the world is a dull uninteresting place. Plots do exist... in the minds of NPCs, Monsters, and the PCs.

This is an important distinction - in our Modern sci-fi/horror game, I know a lot of details about the bad guys: their plans, their main locations, and their likely response to interference. Beyond that, I don't have any 'set' encounters - what happens over the course of the campaign is based entirely on what the adventurers do, then how the baddies respond, and so on. The players are absolutely free to take their characters anywhere they like, subject only to the normal constraints of the game-world.

In this sense there is no 'plot' for me or the players to follow, just guidelines and probabilities. Having run a variant of this sci-fi/horror game for our tabletop group, we never seemed to lack for suspense, intrigue, or excitement despite the lack of structure to the events of the game.

 

[Umbran]

You can improvise in a theatrical scenario or when story telling, but the basic plot is laid out and is followed.

This is demonstrably incorrect.

A few weeks ago, I was travelling with a couple of friends of mine, and their small child. The kid asked me to tell him a story.

I don't have a child. I don't have any children's stories memorized. So, I made one up. When I started, I did not know the plot, or the characters, or the setting, or the end point. I rattled off this tale completely extempore for about half an hour. Are you trying to tell me that since I had not pre-determined the plot, I wasn't telling a story?

If so, I submit that you are using a definition of "story" that is so counter-intuitive as to be useless.

 

[barsoomcore]

I am just not a fan of adventures with plots where the DM knows the ending of before play even begins.

Is this actually a problem?

I mean, I'm pretty sure I've NEVER played in a game where the DM knew the ending before play began. I'm sure that such DMs or such games exist, but in sufficient numbers that this is really a problem? I find that hard to believe. I'm pretty sure that NOBODY on ENWorld runs their games in such a fashion. So what's the purpose of all this fuss and bother?

Sure, there are bad DMs. There are DMs whose style does not mesh with their players'.

A lot of this "debate" reminds me of the "debate" about deconstructionism back in the 80's and early 90's -- where the "avant-garde" were raging against the old school who were (according to the new school) straightjacketing critical interpretation and insisting on one "received" meaning of any given text. It was all very exciting for those who got caught up in the revolutionary fervour, but the truth was that there had never been such an old school with such an agenda, and that deconstruction's basic tenet boiled down to "There may be more than one valid interpretation of the text."

It seems to me that everyone in this thread pretty much agrees that games where the player's choices have no influence on the outcome of the game are less fun for the players. The interesting bit comes in how the DM presents those choices, what the scope of the available choices is, and how much control the players have over the outcome of those choices (among other potential questions).

I favour a broad scope for players' choices -- not even limiting those to "things their character can do". I distribute swashbuckling cards each game session that allow players to do things such as gain attack bonuses or whatever -- some cards are much more far-reaching and cause an unexpected ally to suddenly appear, or cause some NPC to fall in love with the character, and other such "story-level" events that the character wouldn't have any control over.

It gets difficult for me at times, but for the most part it's pretty fun and lets the players engage at a "meta-game" level. Last night just as the PCs were about to bust in on the BBEG one of the players played the "You're Not A Guard" card which causes them to encounter someone who turns out to be an ally. So I have to come up with an ally on the spot, manage to do so, and then in the ensuing combat said ally turns out to serve a critical purpose in the battle.

I ended up (along with some of the players) a little uncomfortable with how significant an impact that sudden ally had on events -- it kind of took some of the significance away from the PCs. Which is part of expanding scope in that fashion -- you can't really predict how such choices will end up affecting everyone's enjoyment.

And sometimes such methodologies have worked brilliantly -- the "Love" card has turned Barsoom inside-out but made the story much more fascinating, and the unexpected ally card has allowed the PCs to accomplish things they could never have survived on their own.

What other techniques have people used that had surprising impacts on their games? I'm not super-familiar with the "Forge" stuff everyone's talking about, and it seems like both fu and Sweeney have a lot of familiarity with techniques I've never heard of, so I'd be interested in hearing people's ideas and experiences.

 

[The Shaman]

Is this actually a problem?

I mean, I'm pretty sure I've NEVER played in a game where the DM knew the ending before play began. I'm sure that such DMs or such games exist, but in sufficient numbers that this is really a problem? I find that hard to believe. I'm pretty sure that NOBODY on ENWorld runs their games in such a fashion. So what's the purpose of all this fuss and bother.

My perspective comes from both playing in a couple of groups where 'storytelling' and keeping to the plotline were very important to the respective GMs (to the point where character abilities were nerfed and meaningful player choice was compromised in both games), as well as reading numerous published adventures which follow the Event A, Event B, Event C... format.

It makes me fussy, I admit, but I don't mean to bother anyone about it.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I *am* interested in learning about Bangs, Story Now (in definition), scene framing, and any other story creation styles people use. But in truth, I'd use them in a Simulationist manner.

Sounds like fun. I'll save discussion of how I read "metatextual" for later, except that as how I read it it can serve a similar function to Premise in Narrativist games -- themes informing and connecting the kinds of things that are brought up in the text(play).

Sorry for the snarkiness; I think the thing people are reacting to is mythusmage's tone of "This is how to play" rather than "This is how I enjoy playing". That rarely goes over well. But it makes more sense to have a meaningful discussion in the thread rather than complain about that.

Okay, Story Now is basically the idea that play can be made up of meaningful decisions and their consequences. The original theory defines "Story" as addressing a given theme, but that part isn't necessary. (Or we can define theme as something like "Adventurers fight evil"; same result.) So whatever our game is about, as it evolves through play, we'll call that story.

It's possible to play a Sim game where you just sort of trudge around the countryside, interacting with things as they come up. To the extent things come up, they're injected into the imagined landscape by the GM. He usually has a purpose to this, unless he's just rolling random encounters. Players get to make meaningful, big decisions from time to time, but maybe there's a lot of fighting orcs cause they're there, or buying supplies, or hanging out in taverns. I'll call that "Story Whenever", 'cause if you were to tell somebody about the stuff that happened in the game, you're kinda skipping the blah parts and getting to the parts where the PCs did something really interesting.

If you're going for Story Now, every session's going to have several places where the players had their characters make meaningful decisions. You're not driving for big, dramatic stuff every scene, but you're not playing out three days of overland travel either. Whatever the parts are that your group thinks are kinda blah, you gloss over them.

Okay, so Bangs and scene framing are tools towards that approach. A Bang is just a situation the GM presents that forces a meaningful decision. It's a question that can't be ignored, but doesn't have one right answer. (If the PC can ignore it, it's just an event; if there's only one right answer, it's railroading. Either way, not a Bang.) By "meaningful" I mean it makes a difference in how play proceeds past this point, and not just "I die or don't die".

Bangs are tricky to come up with. Attacked by orcs? Not a Bang if you have to fight them (not a choice), or if it doesn't matter if you fight them or run (not a meaningful choice). But "Orcs attack, and your old half-orc friend Grog is among them, and he's on their side" is a Bang. What's the deal here? Why's Grog with them? Do we kill them all, or try to kill everybody except Grog, or try to reason with him, or run away and worry about it later? Whatever choice they settle on is going to affect later play.

Scene framing is perhaps simpler. Mostly it's about thinking about what the conflict and the stakes are in the scene you want to set. It's definately about having a reason for a scene other than "some stuff happens." Lots of things happen off-camera in a movie, but we only see the interesting ones. That example Bang above frames a scene (there's a conflict and stakes), but you could also have a scene of the party traveling overland and just having a conversation for a while. The biggest thing here is developing a sense of both how to start a scene (what you want it to accomplish), and how to end it (when that's been accomplished).

Both of these techniques can work fine in Sim; to some extent, people use them all the time. Talking about them explicitly as techniques just makes it easier to discuss them.

I think it's interesting that both of these techniques could be described by some people as "railroady". Partly, that's because there's no clear definition of what railroading is. Both of them do limit player choice, I admit. But we're talking about constraining the ability to "do anything" in exchange for focusing play on "doing interesting things". They're really just ways of editing the in-game events to get to the good stuff. And because they're just techniques, you don't use them exclusively -- players can still propose actions during play, for example.

I do think it's interesting that you can use these techniques to create story, but that it's not a set story of the GM's creation. Every time you throw a Bang to the players, you're telling them, "Tell me where you want the story to go." You talk to your group, figure out the kinds of things they're interested in and enjoy, and drive play towards that kind of stuff.

I hope that gives some fodder for discussion. Like I said, they're just techniques, and different people will find differing utility in them.

 

[fusangite]

A lot of this "debate" reminds me of the "debate" about deconstructionism back in the 80's and early 90's -- where the "avant-garde" were raging against the old school who were (according to the new school) straightjacketing critical interpretation and insisting on one "received" meaning of any given text. It was all very exciting for those who got caught up in the revolutionary fervour, but the truth was that there had never been such an old school with such an agenda, and that deconstruction's basic tenet boiled down to "There may be more than one valid interpretation of the text."

This debate is more like the sudden re-emergence of the deconstructionist revolution in the late 1990s. Not only is there not the alleged polarity between orthodoxy and innovation but the paradigm shift that is being demanded has already taken place and people are now wrestling with the practical implications of it.

What other techniques have people used that had surprising impacts on their games? I'm not super-familiar with the "Forge" stuff everyone's talking about, and it seems like both fu and Sweeney have a lot of familiarity with techniques I've never heard of, so I'd be interested in hearing people's ideas and experiences.

Well, it's been about 18 months since the last time I explained how I run a game so I think I'll give it a whirl again -- anything in ther service of procrastination. First of all, my disclaimer: my style of running an RPG seems to fall outside The Forge's categorization system. It is simulationist, largely insofar as simulationism functions as a catch-all category in Edwards' GNS scheme. I'm tempted, though, to start another thread about this in case the slugfest on this one is unavoidable. Maybe you could start a thread setting up the things you're looking for from people.

 

[barsoomcore]

This debate is more like the sudden re-emergence of the deconstructionist revolution in the late 1990s.

Oh, dear. I must have missed that through the good fortune of being in Japan. It was bad enough the FIRST time around.

Well, it's been about 18 months since the last time I explained how I run a game

Hee. But yeah, I'll start a new thread.