Looking for Advanced Role-Playing Content

[pemerton]

But if it's different ~ if the core principles and concepts of "story now" and "no myth" RPGs can be accepted as a baseline standard ~ then there must be some advanced form of these games.

Well, "advanced" forms of "no myth" RPGs strip away elements that get in the way of play.

4e D&D illustrates this in comparison to AD&D. (I choose these two examples because they are both fairly well-known systems. Rolemaster would do just as well as AD&D as a comparitor. So would 3E, I think, but I'm less familiar with 3E.) I'll give one reason why.

AD&D places a lot of emphasis on the tracking of small units of time (eg spell durations, light source durations, encounter-checks-per-unit-of-time, etc). It also establishes a lot of tracking of consequences from scene to scene (eg healing rules; spell duration rules again; etc). All these things are barriers to effective scene framing, because they make it hard to close of one scene and change the focus of play to another.

Here's another, more tentative, observation about "advanced" mechanics for story now: the way in which Burning Wheel (to pick one example) tracks character wealth is arguably more "advanced" than default 4e. In 4e, wealth is tracked just as in AD&D: PCs collect gold pieces, or gems and the like that they convert to gold pieces; the players track this number on their PC sheets. Which means that buying equipment is primarily an arithmetic exercise and hence not a site of drama. In BW, wealth is an ability rating like any other, and buying equipment is a check like any other. Hence it can be a site of drama.

The reason this is tentative is because a game might simply not make the buying of equipment a site of drama, and might raher treat it as an aspect of PC advancement. And then it wouldn't matter so much that it is handled arithmetically rather than as a mode of action resolution.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, wrong, as in "was not correct." This isn't about being wrong for liking or not liking, but about being factually incorrect.

If that's the case, then those articles are exceptionally misleading, because what he's describing sounds a lot like what the relevant articles are describing. I mean, there's probably some significant difference that I'm missing because I've only read the relevant books instead of playing the actual games, but he still sounds basically correct.

If it's a case where the definitions that you're using are substantially different from the definitions put forth at The Forge, then that sounds like a recipe for confusion all around.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If that's the case, then those articles are exceptionally misleading, because what he's describing sounds a lot like what the relevant articles are describing. I mean, there's probably some significant difference that I'm missing because I've only read the relevant books instead of playing the actual games, but he still sounds basically correct.

If it's a case where the definitions that you're using are substantially different from the definitions put forth at The Forge, then that sounds like a recipe for confusion all around.

I'm thinking now that I have no idea what you're taking about. The description of No Myth as being absolute DM authority over backstory and the use of prepared material being wrong is what I'm taking about. What are you talking about?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm thinking now that I have no idea what you're taking about. The description of No Myth as being absolute DM authority over backstory and the use of prepared material being wrong is what I'm taking about. What are you talking about?

I may have missed part of the discussion, since I apparently have some of the participants as blocked on here (and the blocking feature is currently functional).

One important aspect of "No Myth" is that nothing is true within the game world until someone establishes it. (Right?) There's not going to be a point where the DM says, "You can't do that, because of a thing that happened across town an hour ago, which you don't know about yet." (Right?) There's more to it than that, but that's a big part of it.

What I'm saying is, that this is similar to games that offer a shared narrative, where players can introduce entire plot elements, and the GM is expected to go along with it ("Say yes, or roll the dice"). Those two game modes share the common basis, that there's no pre-established reality that the players don't know about yet. "No Myth" doesn't necessarily include the ability for players to introduce setting elements and details as they go along, but there are games which expand upon that aspect of "No Myth" by codifying game mechanics for the players to introduce those things.

Edit: In any case, if I'm still wrong on this point, then just forget about it. I honestly don't care very much about these types of games, beyond my ability to state why I would never want to play them. It's just that you seemed a bit harsh in the part of your post which I had originally quoted, and I didn't agree with that part of your post, but I still wanted to give you XP for the other part of the post.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

I'd say the most advanced rpgs right now - in 2018 - have very little to do with AD&D, and question the OP's assertion that added detail makes a game more advanced. On the contrary, what you cut from a game is every bit as important, if not more so.

An assertion supported by adherence to the definition.

Can you provide examples that support your claim?

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

In case you missed it, the second sentence is: "'You', in this case, includes the GM as well as the other players."

Yeah, no, I see where you're drawing the connection. You're saying that the author of this article clarified the subject to be all participants.

I think it's a fair observation to say what I said, but I agree that it's not fair to call it the same thing.

So to clarify, "No Myth" is a methodology characterized by placing the responsibility for adjudication (or 'declaring things to be true') into the hands of all participants, player and GM alike (and in some games, eliminating the GM entirely).

... because you skimmed a single blog entry.

Fair. However, I'm not the one who provided that link...

I'd generally call it "story now" or "no myth" or an appllication of the "standard narrativistic model".

... so I don't really see an issue with using it as a sole resource. (I'm still not quite sure if pemerton was offering these articles as an example of advanced RPGs or just as an alternative style.)

You show the hallmarks of someone that had only played D&D and other traditional-style games and, trust me, there's a large leap of understanding you need to cross (not personal, there's a big conceptual gap between the playstyles).

So you've gone from claiming I'm a liar to claiming I'm just plain ignorant?

There's a difference between, "I don't understand what you're saying," and, "I don't understand the concept." It's clear that I'm struggling with the articles pemerton linked. I suspect that's because they're rather poorly written, but I'm willing to accept that I need to put forth more effort. But I'm fairly confident I understand the concept, given the variety of games I've played (and created, though not published).

The "advanced" question? Honestly, I can't answer that because I find the concept uselessly vague. You've defined it as creating or adding to processes independent of a goal...

I don't know how much more I can assist with clarifying the concept, but the definition I offered is not "creating or adding to processes independent of a goal." It is (for the third time): ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill. I also offered definitions for those four terms; and I acknowledged that the term "progress" is tricky because it requires a clear destination (or goal, or purpose). I haven't pushed for an answer to that question because I know that it will automatically exclude a significant number of games, systems and literature; and so I've offered it to the audience to define, so that someone can provide another example of an advanced RPG.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Well, "advanced" forms of "no myth" RPGs strip away elements that get in the way of play.

I fail to see how removing something from any game makes it more advanced. Not that you should keep something that gets in the way of a game's flow ~ i.e. the steady progression from one player action to the next ~ no, if there's something about the rules or process that keeps mucking up the game and you can't justify keeping it, then throw it out or modify it until it doesn't cause those problems.

But simply removing a problem rule doesn't make a game advanced.

... All these things are barriers to effective scene framing, because they make it hard to close of one scene and change the focus of play to another. ... Which means that buying equipment [in AD&D] is primarily an arithmetic exercise and hence not a site of drama. In [Burning Wheel], wealth is an ability rating like any other, and buying equipment is a check like any other. Hence it can be a site of drama.

My takeaway here is that you consider "effective scene framing" ~ i.e. the ability to close out one scene and move to another ~ to be an important end-state; that the tracking and accounting of AD&D inhibits that goal; and that Burning Wheel offers a mechanic that enables that goal.

Assuming that is an accurate interpretation, thank you. I will take a look, see what I can learn from it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, no, I see where you're drawing the connection. You're saying that the author of this article clarified the subject to be all participants.

I think it's a fair observation to say what I said, but I agree that it's not fair to call it the same thing.

Fair observation of what? Because you just agreed that you missed a central point of contention.

So to clarify, "No Myth" is a methodology characterized by placing the responsibility for adjudication (or 'declaring things to be true') into the hands of all participants, player and GM alike (and in some games, eliminating the GM entirely).

No, not that either. Adjudication is handled by the ruleset and the GM. No Myth means that elements of the backstory and setting do not exist until established in play. All players, GM or not, have rights to establish setting and backstory elements. The specific rights and their distribution are system/social contract dependant. Adjudication of action declarations by payers are still handled by the system with GM and player inputs.

Again, an example is the PCs are sick in a dead end. A player declares they are searching for a secret door. In No Myth, the existence or non-existence of a secret door isn't denied because it hasn't cine up in play. Most systems that facilitate No Myth play will determine the secret door's existence with a game mechanic. Success establishes the secret door according to the player's declaration. Failure leaves the result up to the GM (usually) to add fiction that doesn't meet the player's declaration.

Fair. However, I'm not the one who provided that link...



... so I don't really see an issue with using it as a sole resource. (I'm still not quite sure if pemerton was offering these articles as an example of advanced RPGs or just as an alternative style.)

:/

You also puts it in your post, which is what I was referring to. You linked it again. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s first link is true, but then you also linked it. And then quoted only the first line... maybe you recall?

So you've gone from claiming I'm a liar to claiming I'm just plain ignorant?

Whoa, where did i call you a liar. I said you were wrong. And, yes, you are ignorant of these playstylea you've only just now been made aware of. That's not a negative, unless you insist on remaining ignorant.

There's a difference between, "I don't understand what you're saying," and, "I don't understand the concept." It's clear that I'm struggling with the articles pemerton linked. I suspect that's because they're rather poorly written, but I'm willing to accept that I need to put forth more effort. But I'm fairly confident I understand the concept, given the variety of games I've played (and created, though not published).

Dude, you dont understand the concept.

That's okay, its a big jump because it's not at all how your used to thinking about play. And its not better or worse and you can like it or not and you can even never ever think on it again. But, I can say from your statements that you don't get it, and that's fine. Please, believe me when I say this isn't a failing on your part. It's a very different paradigm made more difficult to understand by the theories it sprang from being developed in very obtuse ways. Honestly, pem's links aren't super helpful without a lot of additional reading.

I can attempt a plain talk primer, if youre interested, but, honestly, from what I've gleaned from you, I really don't think it's a good fit for what you're looking for in a game.

I don't know how much more I can assist with clarifying the concept, but the definition I offered is not "creating or adding to processes independent of a goal." It is (for the third time): ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill. I also offered definitions for those four terms; and I acknowledged that the term "progress" is tricky because it requires a clear destination (or goal, or purpose).

These are meaningless without a goal, and if everyone's bringing their own goals, the meanings of each are going to change. For instance, Blades in the Dark is a successor to Apocalypse World with a narrow focus on playing scoundrels in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world. It's set in a single city and has some really nifty relationship mechanics with the factions in the city, but has nothing but a blurb about each faction and no encounter tables at all. Is this advanced to you? Its also a Story Now style game so the core gameplay would probably look pretty alien to you.

I haven't pushed for an answer to that question because I know that it will automatically exclude a significant number of games, systems and literature; and so I've offered it to the audience to define, so that someone can provide another example of an advanced RPG.

The reason you don't have any takers is because claiming your game is advanced is seen as a statement of superiority, and most posters around here aren't interested in that. They want to share cool stuff, though, and if you drop the advanced bit and just state your goals and ask for advice, you'd get plenty.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Whoa, where did i call you a liar.

Hi, Tao.

The implication being very clear: that this account is a sock puppet for the Tao of D&D and that my purpose here is to deceive people in order to draw attention to my work.

Frankly, you're making it very difficult to engage in a reasonable discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The implication being very clear: that this account is a sock puppet for the Tao of D&D and that my purpose here is to deceive people in order to draw attention to my work.

Frankly, you're making it very difficult to engage in a reasonable discussion.

Well, you're a prickly one. Did I continue that after you clarified, or did I engage you?