Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[howandwhy99]

Well. That's the first time I've heard Mike Mearls (who seems to be the original source for Mother May I) blamed on The Forge. (And from memory Calvinball is a Gaming Den epithet along side Magical Tea Party).

Mearls was one of the three founders of The Forge though to his credit I don't think he was looking to design what they and you call narrativist games. The Gaming Den I've been unfamiliar with so that's news to me as to that term's original source. It still doesn't erase the prejudice with which it's been used against other gamers for many years by Forge followers.

SNIP
You talk about pattern recognition? Post-forge game design is all about pattern recognition and matching the patterns you get as emergent play to the way stories work.

Most of this I know quite well, but this last. And perhaps from a gamer's POV some storygame play could be seen as including this behavior. But I've never heard the "post-Forge" (aka storygame) designers admit that games aren't stories or storytelling, but patterns and pattern recognition instead. And I simply cannot agree those games are actually "all about" pattern recognition and not actually all about group story creation. Pattern recognition happens in those games ironically, incidentally. It is not a focus IME. Just like the story aspect of life happens only incidentally in all games not designed to be storygames. It simply isn't in games because it is not part of the defined activity.

Besides a litany of other abuses, what the Big Model did was attempt to conflate the story aspect of life with games, which is a dissolution of games and game theory. Not a growth. In its effect it has become a kind of final conclusion for amateur game theorist who can't puzzle out how to get out of the philosophical arguments it borrows from Post-Structuralist thought. Which has led to an atmosphere of "final conclusions" about games (and pathetically RPGs entirely) rather than a diverse and open-minded gaming community where dissenters don't need to be brutally convinced by... by practices the few of us now aren't engaging in at the moment.

Edwards chief motivation for his GNS essays was that the game (in specific Vampire: The Masquerade) was at odds with the story - something he blamed on simulationism. And the driver of GNS is to produce narrative games - games where the game mechanics work with the story. The two interfering with each other is something that in a good narrativist game should not happen.

The confusion here is that there is a story being made separate from the game in RPGs, especially in D&D (and let's not conflate gameplay with more storytelling just to agree.) Playing games just like living life doesn't ever result in stories. Games result in scores, wins and losses. They are the actualities of people acting in the moment within a pattern created by a series of rules. If anything, we need to create stories about games after the fact (because storytelling, unlike in Ron Edwards' opinion, isn't some unavoidable inevitability of being alive).

Storygames OTOH are designed to create good stories. That is the Big Objective in all those games, though what counts as a good story is more defined in the rules by most of the better ones. RPGs may have been billed in the 1990s as telling stories, but D&D and all its rules were never designed to be so (which was obvious to pretty much anyone even then). They deliver on a hardcore gamer's dream of having the ability to game everything they can possibly imagine (and capably convey to the DM), not a nightmare scenario where gameplay itself is refused to even be acknowledged when playing (The "no rules are necessary for games" mantra).

 

[Bawylie]

I'm not entirely sure I followed all that.

I'll say I think the Forge took a formalized approach to Games without much reference to informal Play. And I hold up Tag, as a game with no score, no wins, no losses, but LOTs of Play.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'll say I think the Forge took a formalized approach to Games without much reference to informal Play. And I hold up Tag, as a game with no score, no wins, no losses, but LOTs of Play.

No, not really. Forge theory never really touches on games or game play in any way. They are all about storytelling and only storytelling using literary theory terms to conflate every other aspect of life into storytelling. There has never been any game theory coming from that community. They are involved in intentional (or unknowing) labeling error.

And Tag [you're it] is about losing and winning depending on if you are it or not. If you are it and quit trying to tag others so you're not it anymore, then the game is over. Usually the game's just called due to time or fatigue. You can play multiple times if you want to keep score, but winning and losing are central to it as a game.

 

[Emerikol]

The confusion here is that there is a story being made separate from the game in RPGs, especially in D&D (and let's not conflate gameplay with more storytelling just to agree.) Playing games just like living life doesn't ever result in stories. Games result in scores, wins and losses. They are the actualities of people acting in the moment within a pattern created by a series of rules. If anything, we need to create stories about games after the fact (because storytelling, unlike in Ron Edwards' opinion, isn't some unavoidable inevitability of being alive).

Storygames OTOH are designed to create good stories. That is the Big Objective in all those games, though what counts as a good story is more defined in the rules by most of the better ones. RPGs may have been billed in the 1990s as telling stories, but D&D and all its rules were never designed to be so (which was obvious to pretty much anyone even then). They deliver on a hardcore gamer's dream of having the ability to game everything they can possibly imagine (and capably convey to the DM), not a nightmare scenario where gameplay itself is refused to even be acknowledged when playing (The "no rules are necessary for games" mantra).

While I get where you are going I think you are overly restricting the definition of story. Any series of events is a story. If I can tell you what happened yesterday that is a story. It may be a lousy story but it's a story.

So all D&D games lead to some sort of story. Hopefully a memorable one. Even in my style which is about as far as you can get from a story game, I still have stories that result.

Anytime you are analyzing playstyles I believe you have to ask the question - what is the payoff? In story games, the payoff is the story. It's not in my playstyle. The payoff for the players is achieving their goal against great opposition which they themselves were part of overcoming.

 

[Agamon]

While I get where you are going I think you are overly restricting the definition of story. Any series of events is a story. If I can tell you what happened yesterday that is a story. It may be a lousy story but it's a story.

So all D&D games lead to some sort of story. Hopefully a memorable one. Even in my style which is about as far as you can get from a story game, I still have stories that result.

Anytime you are analyzing playstyles I believe you have to ask the question - what is the payoff? In story games, the payoff is the story. It's not in my playstyle. The payoff for the players is achieving their goal against great opposition which they themselves were part of overcoming.

This is what I was getting at, myself. Nothing about story games, we're talking about D&D, not Fiasco.

Playing D&D as a complex mathematical equation may be interesting for some, but not for others, and I'm guessing, not the majority (not that this matters). There are different plausible playstyles for the game, I can't see how there can be a feasible argument against that. Then again, this is the internet, so some will try.

 

[howandwhy99]

While I get where you are going I think you are overly restricting the definition of story. Any series of events is a story. If I can tell you what happened yesterday that is a story. It may be a lousy story but it's a story.

I think you're wrong here opening up story to "existing" like Edwards did (though he tried to step out of it later with Actuality). "Stuff Happening", the totality of existence is not a story. Story is a term limited to a specific cultural tradition (the narrative tradition) meaning both the actual thing used as reference to something else and the act of expressing that reference. We have stories about reality and fantasies. Reality and fantasies themselves are actually existing.

However, story is also a term in the narrative tradition used to refer to the actual fantasies in our minds which are then expressed in reference to those imaginings by a speaker. The imaginings themselves in this tradition are called stories, but imagination itself is not a "fiction" - which would confine our inner worlds to the limited culture of narrative if true - even though [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] keeps repeating otherwise.

Inventing could be making a fantasy which may then (but certainly not always) be treated in the tradition of storytelling. I think this is Edwards' Story Now he goes on about (which btw fits hand in glove with "authentic behavior" in the ideology his whole theory is basically a term for term copy of). However, treating invention as story is done emphatically instead of treating the fantasy as game content - game content meaning the pattern existence of the actuality itself, not as reference or for narrative viability. In game terms it treats stories are solely sequential patterns design to evoke responses in others rather than to present a diverse interactive pattern to achieve objectives within.

What I believe you are in danger of doing is placing no restriction on our cultural tradition of narrative, which in the 80's almost led to nearly loss every other detail in our cultural life.

So all D&D games lead to some sort of story. Hopefully a memorable one. Even in my style which is about as far as you can get from a story game, I still have stories that result.

Anytime you are analyzing playstyles I believe you have to ask the question - what is the payoff? In story games, the payoff is the story. It's not in my playstyle. The payoff for the players is achieving their goal against great opposition which they themselves were part of overcoming.

As I've just said games don't result in stories, they result in pasts. (Heck, even storytelling doesn't result in stories). There is a philosophical tactic used to confuse people by making a philosophical point an unavoidable inevitability to ensure its acceptance. Please don't fall for it from Edwards.

I'm glad you're having fun playing your game in whatever style you're currently using. I'd be open to other ways, try out a storygame or two as well. Look for something that just doesn't fit in anywhere, something actually unique. Find games that challenge your current likes, but don't toss aside what you care about either. If actually winning or losing at games is paying off for you, then don't let others theories shame you out of it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think both approaches can be fun for some people. It all depends on the stance you like to take as a player. Inside your characters head or hovering above the game. A good DM will make a risk mitigation game a lot of fun because he will create a world that does not bend to the will of the players easily.

They are. I enjoy both at different times.

All playstyles are about ignoring the things you don't care about and embracing the things you do care about. No matter how hard any of us would try to dispute otherwise, playstyle preferences are totally subjective and equally valid.

I personally just do not care for the story game approach.

Vincent Baker, who was running the Forge at the end, has come out with the most immersive tabletop games I've ever played. No hovering above the table. The Story Game approach is "Decide what you want out of a game, then design a game that aids that playstyle". Luke Crane also came out of the Forge - and his Torchbearer (based on his Burning Wheel engine) is all about logistics-heavy dungeon crawling where light, weight, and supplies are important.

Mearls was one of the three founders of The Forge

[Citation needed]

I have never seen this claimed before anywhere. And I do not believe it is true. It is true that Mearls was a poster at The Forge - but his total post count was 46. Hardly the post count of a founder member who had much to do with the community.

Where are you getting your information about The Forge and Storygames? Because it is in direct conflict with what I read from The Forge, and what I see when I play games that grew out of the Forge.

No, not really. Forge theory never really touches on games or game play in any way. ... There has never been any game theory coming from that community. They are involved in intentional (or unknowing) labeling error.

What you call Forge Theory - GNS and The Big Model are about why we play. What our objectives and motivations are. And that is a big part of the theory of games. It's just at the philosophical rather than mathematical level.

 

[pemerton]

Even though pemerton keeps repeating otherwise.

I've asked you before to stop imputing to me things that I have never said.

Imagination is not a fiction - it is a mental faculty.

Imagined things, however, are fictions - that is to say, they (i) are not real, but (ii) are things that we talk and reason about as if they were real.

Here are two relevant entries (#s 4 & 5) from the Random House dictionary definition of "fiction", as appearing at dictionary.com:

* the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.

* an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.​

All RPG play requires these. Multiple imaginary things and events (persons, places, doings) are postulated for the purposes of reasoning about them.

The connection between fictions and stories is neither necessary nor sufficient. Not all imagining is story-telling. For instance, if I am training you to be a firefighter, describe a situation to you involving a burning building, and ask you what you would do in that situation, I am getting you to imagine a ficiton. But I am not getting you to tell a story.

And if you write a narrative history or biography, you have produced a story, but (hopefully) have not produced any fictions.

Forge theory never really touches on games or game play in any way. They are all about storytelling and only storytelling

Here is Ron Edwards in his essay "Gamism: Step on Up":

Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color] provide an arena for the competition.​

. . . "among the participants" is too vague, at least from the standpoint of most readers. I was thinking of anyone involved in the play of the game, permitting just who competes with whom to be customized, but most people seem to think I mean "players" in the widely-used, non-GM sense . . .

Exploration is composed of five elements, no sweat: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color ... but it's not a hydra with five equal heads. . .

Situation is the center. Situation is the imaginative-thing we experience during play. Character and Setting are components that produce it, System is what Situation does, and Color can hardly be done without all this in place to, well, to color. . . .

Gamist play, more than any other mode, demands that Situation be not only central, but also the primary focus of attention. You want to play Gamist? Then don't piss about with Character and/or Setting without Situation happening, or about to. . .

The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. . .

For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous, elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing.​

That is all about playing a game. It perfectly describes, for instance, playing Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain. It also seems to me to be the default approach to RPGing on these boards. The player characters face a risky situation in the gameworld (eg a dangerous dungeon that they are trying to loot). And the real world participants in the game have to "step on up", using their understanding of the game, and their cleverness, to perform well (eg building effective characters, making effective mechanical calls during action resolution, intuiting the nature of the ingame situation, such as where traps and secret doors might be found).

There is nothing at all in this passage about storytelling. Which is to say, your claim about the Forge is flat-out wrong.

 

[Hussar]

I assume someone determines this at some point? What you are talking about isn't playing a game, but creating a story. You want to explore potential topics of shared discussion depending on what people feel like "exploring" (a postmodern term for invention) in that moment. Predefining these things quits allowing players to "invent"-explore and is therefore bad.

I might quibble over your tone, and certainly over your conclusion that somehow I'm no longer playing a game, but the gist here is right.

I, as DM, am more interested in exploring the game world than I am in setting up a pre-defined theme park.

lso, a good DM has stats and tracked information about NPCs the players do not have so the can respond to the players when in conversation with the NPC. Rules for NPCs exist PCs should never have because the players are making those decisions, not a DM referencing numbers and rolls pulled from an NPC statmap.In games and gameplay Luke Skywalker is either one of the players or he is part of the game and already defined in the rules. That's so players can actually game this as game content. Remember, predict, track for themselves. IOW act strategically with "Luke Skywalker" (game design element) which changes all along the way as the game is played. Partly due to the players, partly due to the rules of the game.

In the example, Luke is an NPC. But, my point is, very little, other than some very basic parameters (game mechanical elements like hp and the like, since he very likely will be fighting someone) needs to be pinned down before play.

Again, as I said, is Luke corruptible? Before play starts, I as DM, have no idea. I honestly don't know and I don't want to know. After play ends, now I know. Did Vader succeed? Then yup Luke's not as strong willed as he might have been. And play continues from that point.

In your style, that question is already answered. The player's interactions with Luke have to take into account your, as DM, feelings and interpretations. It places the DM right squarely in the spotlight. All the time.

As a DM I never want to be in the spotlight. That's not my job and the best DM invisible to the players as much as possible.

 

[howandwhy99]

[Citation needed]

I have never seen this claimed before anywhere. And I do not believe it is true. It is true that Mearls was a poster at The Forge - but his total post count was 46. Hardly the post count of a founder member who had much to do with the community.

Where are you getting your information about The Forge and Storygames? Because it is in direct conflict with what I read from The Forge, and what I see when I play games that grew out of the Forge.

Again, I think he left right away, but he was there at the beginning. Edwards himself talked about it. And it's well over ten years now since this has been relevant so I admit I'm having trouble finding my previous references. Now only Nixon and Edwards are easily found as co-founders. But I assume you are discounting all the 1990s dialogue that led up to the creation of the Forge so it might profligate the One True Theory? If so, the circles of people were largely the same prior to its founding. Whoever originally determined "Mother May I" isn't as important as where almost everyone learned it from, as a piece of Edwards' promotion for his conclusions on gaming.

What you call Forge Theory - GNS and The Big Model are about why we play. What our objectives and motivations are. And that is a big part of the theory of games. It's just at the philosophical rather than mathematical level.

No it's not. For year after year it was the exact opposite of a benign study simply noting what people said they actually did when playing games and what they liked about them.

It was a dogma dictating "the way things really are" and endless amounts of invectives thrown at gamers who wouldn't get on board with it resulted.

People went to the site asking about their games and the guru told them "the real meaning" of their gaming problems all the time selling "the real good way to play" which meant good storytelling (conflated with "fun"). Gamers had problems and they were manipulated into switching over to what they "really" wanted: storytelling. It was one person's power trip and a case study in groupthink and cult behavior. Megalomania is the best term I can think to describe it.

I have no problem with philosophy asking why people like to play games (keeping score, winning and succeeding during play, avoiding losing when playing and ultimate failure, self-improvement at the game, gaining influence, team improvement and team camaraderie, friendly competition, good sportsmanship, etc. etc.)

I say they were never really interested in talking about play as it relates to games. They were talking about play when making up stories. It's a 180 degrees opposite.

Ignore the "game" label when reading that philosophy, listen to the concepts and the terminology instead. They are almost 100% narrative theory, almost never about game theory or game play. They have no desire to create games as games. Games are always conflated as group story making - an aspect totally unnecessary to playing a game.

It is a pathetic shame our hobby has been ruined into story making and few even know it. Other gaming communities have done well to shield themselves to this. They hide from designing games along the One True Theory, but even they are unlikely to survive the march of these bearers of self-righteous certainty. And the community at large accepting a "fait accompli" attitude and ignoring or giving endless rebuttal to any outsider viewpoint only serves to reinforce the close-mindedness overtaking us.