Experiencing the fiction in RPG play

[Ratskinner]

It's been recognised that there are multiple valid ways to play rpgs, including as-a-game and as-a-story, for quite a long time.

“D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel, i .e . direct escapism through abandonment of oneself to the flow of play… The escapists can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonist, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game.”​

- Lew Pulsipher D&D Campaigns in White Dwarf Issue 1 1977​

Wait, Old-School adventures aren't silly and totally unbelieveable? I am confused.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Wait, Old-School adventures aren't silly and totally unbelieveable? I am confused.

You're right, these things are all relative. This is from later in the same article, which I think explains what Lew means by a "silly, totally unbelievable game".

"This idea of self-consistency or integration must be pursued further. One of the most destructive notions I've encountered in D&D is the belief that 'anything goes'. This is fine for a pick-up or silly-fun game, but contributes an air of unreality and recklessness which can be fatal to a campaign, and which in any case is offensive to many players. Inevitably, an 'anything goes' campaign tends to be one in which player skill counts for little, for two reasons. First, players have no foundation to base decisions on; never knowing what to expect, they cannot plan a rational response. Second, the 'anything goes' game tends to be dominated by dice rolls or referee manipulation. A great deal usually depends on the saving throws of characters. For example, one of the favourite ploys of the 'anything goes' referee is to devise panels of buttons or decks of cards similar to a Deck of Many Things, often involving more far-reaching changes. Players push buttons or pick cards and great things occur. Players seldom do much to earn the rewards or penalties - the cards are easy to find, and the dice determine results.​

​

One may protest that the skillful player can avoid picking from the card deck, or fooling with the lever or button, and so on. Unfortunately, the structure of this kind of game is such that, if a player (not a character) wants to get ahead, he must take his chances. The reasoning is simple. A player can always roll new characters. In a luck-dominated game, even if half the time a player's character is seriously harmed, the rest of the time he benefits to the same degree or more. Consequently, the player who chooses not to take the ridiculous risks may die less often, but his characters will often be mediocre compared to those who dared and were lucky. The player who trusts to fate will lose many characters, but his other characters will prosper. In other words, the 'law of averages' works against the cautious player. The key is that the character run by the player does not have to act rationally because it has no separate existence. In many cases, only an insane person would accept the risks involved in cards, buttons, and levers. It's too much like Russian Roulette. But the player isn't the one who may die or be maimed; in fact, if his character is crippled, he can easily get him killed and start a new one. Thus this form of the game forces players to depend on luck and at the same time contributes an air of unreality to the entire proceeding. Even fantastic fiction, despite the name, possesses an internal self-consistency, and the characters in fantasy fiction usually act as rational, though brave, people. In Dungeons and Dragons, if the campaign is not designed correctly it becomes unbelievable, for a D&D player may, along with the fiction reader, say 'I don't believe men would do this'. Each referee must ask himself as he sets up his campaign what rules and items would seem believable if he read about them in a fantasy novel.​

​

Even in a fantasy game, moderation and self-discipline are virtues necessary to top refereeing. While campaigns may be run on other bases, I believe that a skill-game campaign is likely to satisfy people more in the long run. Some people prefer luck and passivity, but they are seldom game players. If you feel a need to get drunk and/or stoned, however, try lottery D&D the similarities are surprising."​

 

[Lanefan]

A Campaign that a DM is running is not a story.

It is a Game where the players are interacting with a living virtual world and finding adventure.

And right there you've just obliged the DM to have some story going on - a world can hardly be described as "living" if there's nothing happening in it.

The DM's function is not to tell a story. He is there to run the Game.

He can present the players with various scenarios or missions in the context of the type of campaign the group has chosen to play.

Yes, and a part of both of those involves presenting whatever ongoing stories the game-world might have going in within it (which be extension means the DM has to first come up with said stories). And every time the DM refers to these stories, even just as background material (e.g. "On returning to town you hear news that the West Marches have fallen; Duke Tway's forces routed King Yorik's troops all the way back to the Jasper Mountains, where they regrouped and held a line.") she becomes - that's right - a storyteller.

The DM as the Master of the virtual world then has the NPC's react to what the characters have done.

But he is not there to ensure a predetermined outcome. His is the master of the virtual world - not the players actions. There literally is no "story" for the DM to tell.

Here's where you're messing this up.

If the DM's expected to provide a living breathing world then there very much IS a story for her to tell. What you're mixing up is the difference between a) DM telling a story and b) the PCs being expected to (or forced to) engage with said story.

So, in the above example this difference manifests as the DM expecting (or forcing) the PCs to go and help King Yorik's army vs. just neutrally relating the news and letting the players/PCs choose what they do next even if their choice ends up having nothing to do with the war in the west.

RPG groups do not engage in storytelling. They are playing a Game.

A game, that by design, has no predetermined outcomes.

The right conclusion from the wrong premise.

RPG groups engage in story-writing, whether intentionally-at-the-time or just seen in hindsight.

I reiterate:
Any "story" part of an RPG is an after-effect that emerges out of gameplay. The story you tell about your characters adventures after the game.

Ah...this tells me another difference in viewpoint: you're talking about the specific story of the PCs where I'm talking about the story of the game-world as a whole. Both are stories: the DM tells one and the table as a whole (possibly incorporating elements of the DM's story as told) crafts the other.

(edited for typos)

 

[Lanefan]

You're right, these things are all relative. This is from later in the same article, which I think explains what Lew means by a "silly, totally unbelievable game".

"This idea of self-consistency or integration must be pursued further. One of the most destructive notions I've encountered in D&D is the belief that 'anything goes'. This is fine for a pick-up or silly-fun game, but contributes an air of unreality and recklessness which can be fatal to a campaign, and which in any case is offensive to many players. Inevitably, an 'anything goes' campaign tends to be one in which player skill counts for little, for two reasons. First, players have no foundation to base decisions on; never knowing what to expect, they cannot plan a rational response. Second, the 'anything goes' game tends to be dominated by dice rolls or referee manipulation. A great deal usually depends on the saving throws of characters. For example, one of the favourite ploys of the 'anything goes' referee is to devise panels of buttons or decks of cards similar to a Deck of Many Things, often involving more far-reaching changes. Players push buttons or pick cards and great things occur. Players seldom do much to earn the rewards or penalties - the cards are easy to find, and the dice determine results.​

​

One may protest that the skillful player can avoid picking from the card deck, or fooling with the lever or button, and so on. Unfortunately, the structure of this kind of game is such that, if a player (not a character) wants to get ahead, he must take his chances. The reasoning is simple. A player can always roll new characters. In a luck-dominated game, even if half the time a player's character is seriously harmed, the rest of the time he benefits to the same degree or more. Consequently, the player who chooses not to take the ridiculous risks may die less often, but his characters will often be mediocre compared to those who dared and were lucky. The player who trusts to fate will lose many characters, but his other characters will prosper. In other words, the 'law of averages' works against the cautious player. The key is that the character run by the player does not have to act rationally because it has no separate existence. In many cases, only an insane person would accept the risks involved in cards, buttons, and levers. It's too much like Russian Roulette. But the player isn't the one who may die or be maimed; in fact, if his character is crippled, he can easily get him killed and start a new one. Thus this form of the game forces players to depend on luck and at the same time contributes an air of unreality to the entire proceeding. Even fantastic fiction, despite the name, possesses an internal self-consistency, and the characters in fantasy fiction usually act as rational, though brave, people. In Dungeons and Dragons, if the campaign is not designed correctly it becomes unbelievable, for a D&D player may, along with the fiction reader, say 'I don't believe men would do this'. Each referee must ask himself as he sets up his campaign what rules and items would seem believable if he read about them in a fantasy novel.​

​

Even in a fantasy game, moderation and self-discipline are virtues necessary to top refereeing. While campaigns may be run on other bases, I believe that a skill-game campaign is likely to satisfy people more in the long run. Some people prefer luck and passivity, but they are seldom game players. If you feel a need to get drunk and/or stoned, however, try lottery D&D the similarities are surprising."​

Re the bolded bit above in what to me is otherwise one of the most off-putting articles* I've seen in many a year: if devices such as Decks of Many Things are so offensive, why does a cheer go up around the table every time one appears?

* - by 'off-putting' I mean that it exhorts against the high-risk high-reward style of play which is to me the very essence of the game in the first place.

 

[Doug McCrae]

if devices such as Decks of Many Things are so offensive, why does a cheer go up around the table every time one appears?

Both preferences are matters of taste, neither is better or worse than the other. Imx both are equally common. It could be that Lew is wrongly assuming that other people share his tastes or it could be he gravitates towards those who do.

 

[Campbell]

What follows is just my perspective.

The idea of living breathing game worlds has never really sat well with me even when talking about sandbox play. Where does the world live? How does it breathe? What is is its animating animus? From my perspective thinking off screen is a useful valuable GM technique, but the setting of a game is a designed thing - not something with a life of its own. We want players to feel the setting is a dynamic place that changes both based on the decisions they make, but also on its own. However the intent is to provide a compelling play space with which the players can interact and should be designed with this in mind.

When I do a faction turn between sessions of Stars Without Number the resulting changes to the fiction the players experience in play are not the result of a living world. They are the result of me, the referee, doing a thing and then doing additional design work to make sense of it.

I do not design worlds. Depending on the game I might design settings. I might design adventures. I might design scenarios. I might frame scenes. I might make GM moves. I might design sandboxes. In every case I am designing a space to be played in where players can make decisions that matter. Those changes to the setting that occur between sessions, especially the ones that happen off screen are the result of deliberate design. I am the animating force and bear a responsibility for that design work.

 

[Campbell]

Both preferences are matters of taste, neither is better or worse than the other. Imx both are equally common. It could be that Lew is wrongly assuming that other people share his tastes or it could be he gravitates towards those who do.

He is explicitly talking about this on the basis of creating an environment of skilled play of a game. The Deck of Many Things is exciting, but it serves to level the playing field between players who make rational tactical and strategic decisions and players who do not.

 

[S'mon]

Those changes to the setting that occur between sessions, especially the ones that happen off screen are the result of deliberate design. I am the animating force and bear a responsibility for that design work.

Then you're not using enough dice rolls!

 

[Ratskinner]

You're right, these things are all relative. This is from later in the same article, which I think explains what Lew means by a "silly, totally unbelievable game".

<snippage>​

Fine evidence, IMO, that Lew and I exist in different realities.

I've always found the idea that monsters always hole up in reverse castles that they dig underground to make it easier to kill them ludicrous in the extreme. And yet, that is the very premise of the game. Almost everything I ever ran for the RPGA at cons back in the day would fit his definition. IME, the people tossing in the "levers" and "decks of many things" are the same ones telling me about how tough or rugged their games and old-school style are.

 

[dragoner]

Thoughts?

I agree for the most part, though I usually use setting instead of fiction. Though the rub lies in the fact if I lay out what the players can do, like go into the seedy bar at Qiangdao (Bandit Town/Free star port) where the player can us their gambling skill, to start a game and maybe find info from some local mercs; I know that is what they are exactly going to do. So I'd rather leave it up to them if I can.