Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[thefutilist]

I agree with the last sentence. I think you are slightly understating what is required to get "story oriented play" out of GURPS. I'll admit I've never done it with GURPS, but I've done it with Rolemaster. And as well as agenda and principles of the sort that you point to, you also need to be ready to work around mechanics that are resolutely committed to foregrounding an ethos-neutral setting, rather than an ethos-laden situation.

Yeah it’s more an illustration than something I’d recommend. You can just take a resolution system and as long as you’re playing to find out, use it to find out. In practice I can’t see why anyone would use GURPS for such a thing unless they were trying to prove a point.

 

[zakael19]

I found FitD (via Scum and Villainy) to feel a little too much like a "writer's room" -- that is, when playing we (as a group) were actively working to interpret results and narrate things that would make the "coolest story" rather than "what my character would do" or some sort of verisimilitude driven outcome. That is not necessarily bad if that is what you are aiming for, but I bounced off of it. And I am not an "immersion" gamer or anything. But it still was a step too far removed for me.

I mean, you’re playing S&V. The game gives you Actions which are the sorts of things characters in War Stars and Firefly do. It asks how good you are at doing them. It gives you special abilities that are full of flavor about doing War Stars and Firefly stuff. It gives you objectives about smuggling and rebellion and whatever.

If you’re not declaring you’re attempting actions that follow naturally from your sheet and character (background, beliefs, the other stuff it has you fill out) to achieve the score, idk.

The only time my FITD games get meta-“writers room” is when we talk about what sort of score/mission/etc they would want to see next. The rest of the time it’s a story that unfolds right alongside premise and theme from the viewpoint of the characters.

 

[pemerton]

I mean, you’re playing S&V. The game gives you Actions which are the sorts of things characters in War Stars and Firefly do. It asks how good you are at doing them. It gives you special abilities that are full of flavor about doing War Stars and Firefly stuff. It gives you objectives about smuggling and rebellion and whatever.

If you’re not declaring you’re attempting actions that follow naturally from your sheet and character (background, beliefs, the other stuff it has you fill out) to achieve the score, idk.

The only time my FITD games get meta-“writers room” is when we talk about what sort of score/mission/etc they would want to see next. The rest of the time it’s a story that unfolds right alongside premise and theme from the viewpoint of the characters.

I've never played BitD or S&V. But based on what I know about them, what you say here makes sense: player's declare actions; rules are applied to determine outcomes of actions; where those rules require the GM to make a decision, the GM makes the decision within the specified parameters.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, you’re playing S&V. The game gives you Actions which are the sorts of things characters in War Stars and Firefly do. It asks how good you are at doing them. It gives you special abilities that are full of flavor about doing War Stars and Firefly stuff. It gives you objectives about smuggling and rebellion and whatever.

If you’re not declaring you’re attempting actions that follow naturally from your sheet and character (background, beliefs, the other stuff it has you fill out) to achieve the score, idk.

The only time my FITD games get meta-“writers room” is when we talk about what sort of score/mission/etc they would want to see next. The rest of the time it’s a story that unfolds right alongside premise and theme from the viewpoint of the characters.

I've never played BitD or S&V. But based on what I know about them, what you say here makes sense: player's declare actions; rules are applied to determine outcomes of actions; where those rules require the GM to make a decision, the GM makes the decision within the specified parameters.

it is in the results part of play that it gets writer's room-y. Deciding what that die result means in the fiction, since everyone has input and interest in how those things turn out.

but maybe that was just the way the person who introduced me to it played the game, and it isn't supposed to work that way.

 

[TwoSix]

it is in the results part of play that it gets writer's room-y. Deciding what that die result means in the fiction, since everyone has input and interest in how those things turn out.

but maybe that was just the way the person who introduced me to it played the game, and it isn't supposed to work that way.

So when you say "writer's room-y", do you mean it was the collaborative nature of the resolution that was problematic, as opposed to leaving the result of the narration up to just the impacted player and the GM?

I've seen the same criticism of cooperative games like Pandemic, where everyone's individual actions are generally determined by group consensus (although the specific player can always do their thing if desired).

 

[AnotherGuy]

Deciding what that die result means in the fiction, since everyone has input and interest in how those things turn out.

Well this can happen in D&D with your basic hit roll but you do not necessarily have the entire table's input.
In D&D other players may offer input or suggestions but at the end of the day the DM and specific player likely have the biggest vote on what the hit roll means in the fiction. As I see it.

 

[Reynard]

So when you say "writer's room-y", do you mean it was the collaborative nature of the resolution that was problematic, as opposed to leaving the result of the narration up to just the impacted player and the GM?

Yeah, essentially. I don't want it to sound like the problem was specifically giving up control of outcome narration, but rather the way having broader collaboration made it feel less like a game and more like a cooperative storytelling exercise.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

Slugblaster is a good example of a game that creates story but where the player doesn’t create story. Not in any meaningful way, they just colour in the lines. It’s a bit like one of those 90’s wod games or critical role, I’d put it in the same category.

Yeah, its interesting that I'd probably prefer a game with more emphasis on fixed beats like you see in a Firebrands Framework game, where the game is the sole arbiter of setting up dramatic situations over this style of fixed beats and loose/play to find out character development between the beats.

I may give it a try when I find time this year, but to me the best part of RPGs is that this narrative arc is created from a collision of player agency, GM agency, rules and dice to create something entirely new.

I have a feeling what will happen is the core narrative arc will just feel very stagnant and play won't feel natural being stuck between the lines. And you as a player are pressured to stay out of Actor Stance because over the head of your roleplay will be a constant Writer Stance pressure of aiming towards the next Beat (but not approaching too fast!)

There was also that you are heavily incentivized to finish the Beats, which may be less interesting than something like how you never reconcile with your family.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Conversely what if it is a session with no rolls but purely social roleplay and decison-making, Maybe the die is rolled a handful of times...do you consider that session @Reynard an exercise in story-making?

 

[A_Carrington]

All RPGs also have their own restrictions, what's wrong if the restriction is 'At the end, you will betray the person who trusts you the most' instead of something more concretely like 'there's a 50 feet high stone wall'? Is deciding at Session 0/CharGen/between sessions on how your character's arc would develop also be an expression of player agency?

If it's decided before the game, it doesn't mean anything.

If the player chooses to betray someone during the course of play in service of one or more goals, then it means something.

If I already know what will happen, there is no point in showing up.

There is no reason to compare this to a concrete wall. This isn't deciding anything about the player in advance, and it's not affecting player decisions, so it's not equivalent or similar, to any degree.