Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3405388" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't actually see a new idea here. For example, Ron Edwards has been writing about this sort of roleplaying for years at The Forge."Story" can refer to two things: (1) the sequence of events that constitute a plot; (2) the thematic range and resolution of the game.I think that Kamikaze Midget is running these together somewhat. I am trying to distinguish them.It is possible to have a game in which the players have a degree of meta-game control over the plot. Conan d20, which allows Fate Points to be spent to tweak the gameworld in a limited way, is an example. This is not "wish-fulfillment gaming" - Fate Points are a limited and valuable currency. But it marks a difference between the mechanics of that game, and the mechanics of D&D.It is also possible to have a game in which players have a high degree of control over thematic content and resolution. Consider The Riddle of Steel, The Dying Earth, or Hero Wars/Quest. These are all games in which the mechanics give the players, not the GM, the capacity to determine the thematic content of the game: TROS via spiritual attributes, The Dying Earth via the players' shaping of conflicts so as to enable the delivery of taglines, Hero Wars via such mechanical elements as the players' creation of their characters' relationship attributes, and the players' control over the shape of conflict resolution via APs and Hero Points. These games require the GM to prepare a context for adventuring: a setting, perhaps, or a situation, but not a plot.I think that letting players have that sort of control over the plot and/or theme makes a difference to the way an RPG plays. For example, in his Adventure Building series on the WoTC website, Wolfgang Bauer suggested that PCs be given the illusion of choice, but that all roads nevertheless lead to the dramatic confrontation with the BBEG that the GM has planned. This sort of "illusionism" can result in the players experiencing drama, but not in them creating it, as the drama and its resolution have already been plotted by the GM: the final confrontation is predetermined by the GM as PCs vs BBEG.Once players have the capacity to shape the plot, there is no guarantee that the game will head in any given direction. You are correct to say this can lead to the game stultifying under some conditions. But it is wrong to say that it will lead to stultification under any conditions. Look at Jonathan Tweet's description of his original campaign in Over The Edge, for example.Once players have the capacity to shape and resolve the themes, the content and character of payoff is up to the players. Again, if this is what the players want, then pre-scripting by the GM will utterly thwart them.Some players want to make more than localised choices within a pre-determined framework of options. They want to make game-shaping and world-shaping choices. It is possible to run an RPG in which this happens. It may not be to the taste of all groups.I'm not sure how to understand this paragraph. If players are allowed to choose sides in a conflict, then the big thematic payoff can't be preplanned by the GM, because it can't be known in advance what the dramatic conflict will be. Or maybe we are talking about different aspects of planning - once the GM knows which side the players have taken, it may be helpful to have a bit of time between sessions to stat out the opponent they have chosen. I don't know if KM objects to that, but that's not what I'm talking about. As per my reference to Dragonlance, I'm talking about the default assumption in most D&D modules that the PCs will start at the beginning and work through the module until they defeat the enemy that has been pre-determined by the module writer, in the circumstances and (typically) for the reasons that have been pre-determined by the author. This sort of adventure precisely does not permit the players to choose sides.As to whether or not finding a given widget in a 5' square is part of the resolution - player-driven play will typically (I think) focus much more on interpersonal conflict (PC vs PC, or more often PC vs NPC) than on exploration and equipping scenarios.I agree that PC design is an issue in player-driven play. But only because it is an issue in any RPG. What happens when one player wants to play a Dwarven Paladin, and another a Chaotic Neutral Elven Bard? D&D has never had mechanics to handle party-building - it is left up to the players and GM to negotiate. I don't think that the scenario you sketch raises different issues in this regard.</blockquote>

Verification