Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6212815" data-attributes="member: 27570">Shared Storytelling hasn't been discussed in anyone's game style as yet. I will bring it up now though, because I have several online games that are entirely Shared Storytelling. One is a sci-fi game in the vein of "Firefly/Serenity." Members of a crew go about getting jobs and dealing with complications. As the "narrator" of the shared fiction, it is my responsibility to introduce complications into the shared fiction presented by the players. Through their posts they present situations and I am, as they are, limited to whatever is posted. It only gets edited or changed if something presented explicitly contradicts something else presented, and then only if the change cannot be supported through description. An example would be if one of the players changed the color of an NPCs hair. If this can be explained in my next post (ie  the NPC went the hair salon in between the time they last saw him, or he was wearing a wig previously) then I have to go with it. If it can't be explained (the gun is suddenly a nuke) then the player changes it (this doesn't happen very often and usually happens by accident and is quickly fixed). There are no dice rolls in the game. When players created their characters, they chose abilities they would succeed at, those they would fail at, and those that would provoke possible complications. I leverage those to present opportunities for the players to interact. The game succeeds or fails only based on my ability to present complications and the players ability to shape the fiction in interesting ways. Dice have zero impact on the game.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s style, which he is calling "indie," isn't like this at all, with the exception of it being his job as DM to introduce complications to the game. Where in my shared storytelling game I only introduce complications to the game based on the character, he does it based on the result of die rolls, fictional relevancies, and character background. In my shared storytelling game, players can introduce new fiction, it's their job to do it. In his game, players do not introduce fiction into the game, they shape and re-frame the fiction presented (similar to the way a wizard in 3x might do it through the use of spells, which some perceive as the balanced issue with 3x - tying it back into to thread topic) by succeeding or failing at tasks (ie die rolls). No one is denying that 3x needs DM arbitration. It's required (or rather difficult to play with out). 4x requires less (but less doesn't mean none) because there is far less ambiguity in the language of the rules. I would also argue that 4e has far less "indie" mechanics built into the game than other games like Burning Wheel or Dungeon World. I don't think Pemerton is suggesting differently. What he is saying, is that he is able to run the game he wants to play far more easily with 4x than with 3x because it needs less DM arbitration. Personally, I would love 3x to require less DM arbitration and more balance between narrative control (wizard) and mechanical action (fighter). This doesn't mean that I would want 3x to be 4x. But I would love 3x to reduce the need for arbitration. I love my 3x wizards (narrative is where it's at for me). Not so much the 3x fighter (give them some fighting styles - via TOB stances, not encounter powers - that impact the fiction!). And for heaven's sake 3x/4x start making abilities that function both in-combat and out-of-combat equally well! I want my cleave to work outside combat. I want my sneak attack to work outside combat. I want my diplomacy skill to work in combat. I want abilities that are useful whatever the situation so I can start making characters that are well rounded and yet specialized in what they can do and the way they can do it.</blockquote>

Verification