Looking for Advanced Role-Playing Content

[Simon T. Vesper]

What is your idea of a good playing experience?
Without knowing this, it is impossible to engage you in a meaningful way regarding this idea of an "advanced" game.

I disagree. You could begin by defining your objective or purpose for the game. From there, you can give examples of how you might apply knowledge, skill or complexity, all with an eye toward progressing your game toward your objective.

Even if you accept that there are many different objectives for the game ~ each of equal value ~ some of which contradict or conflict with each other ~ you can explain each (or as many as you prefer) within the context of the terms provided.

[example]

The purpose of a role-playing game is for the player to create a character and immerse himself in the GM's world. Total immersion is the desired end-state. However, because we know we're playing a game, we cannot maintain total immersion for long periods of time. But if we approach other aspects of the game with this goal in mind, understanding the limitation, we can identify associations that ultimately contribute to that penultimate experience.

Goal-setting is one of these elements/associations. Who determines the players' goals for a game? Is it the players or the GM? If it's both, who has more or less influence over the final decision? Which of these answers ~ the players decide their goals; the GM decides the players' goals; the GM and players engage in a dialogue to determine their goals ~ best contributes to the purpose of the game, i.e. achieving those moments of total immersion?

Players should be fully responsible for setting their goals. This is the better answer because it helps to ensure maximum investment in the game. If the GM sets the goals, either session-to-session or across a long-term campaign, there's a risk that the players simply won't buy in. Sure, there's an understanding that the game won't happen unless the players are willing to engage it on its terms, and there are times when it's appropriate for a GM to go, "This is the adventure we're running tonight because reasons," but for maximum player investment, the best approach is to let the players decide what they want to accomplish in the game.

All of this is a baseline: the purpose is achieving total immersion; invested players are more willing to suspend disbelief and immerse themselves in the game; player investment is best achieved by letting them decide their goals.

Now that we have a baseline for comparison, how can we advance this game? What knowledge or complexity can we bring into the game to make it more likely that we'll achieve total immersion?

[/example]

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

I don't understand what you mean by "shifting to something on the same level."

...

If you think that playing "no myth" style is on the same level as (say) playing Dead Gods, or a typical contemporary AP, you're going to have to explain what you mean by that.

The "No Myth" style isn't a style ~ it's an acknowledgement of a thing that happens in RPGs.

The basic concept is that nothing exists unless explicitly stated. That is a fact. Until the GM says, "This thing is true," that thing is not true and can be altered.

This fact applies to all RPGs. I have extensive notes for my game. I can alter those notes at any time, so long as it does not create inconsistencies with things I've established as true. By recognizing this, does this mean I'm "engaging" in the "no myth" style?

To put it another way, in order for this "style" to legitimately exist, I have to have the option of running games that don't conform to it; there has to be at least one style that doesn't feature the "no myth" concept in some form.

Very well. "No myth" is a term that recognizes the sovereignty of the GM when establishing truth in the game. How can we advance that concept? What knowledge or skill can we apply that improves the game by elevating "no myth" game elements?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The "No Myth" style isn't a style ~ it's an acknowledgement of a thing that happens in RPGs.

The basic concept is that nothing exists unless explicitly stated. That is a fact. Until the GM says, "This thing is true," that thing is not true and can be altered.

This fact applies to all RPGs. I have extensive notes for my game. I can alter those notes at any time, so long as it does not create inconsistencies with things I've established as true. By recognizing this, does this mean I'm "engaging" in the "no myth" style?

To put it another way, in order for this "style" to legitimately exist, I have to have the option of running games that don't conform to it; there has to be at least one style that doesn't feature the "no myth" concept in some form.

Very well. "No myth" is a term that recognizes the sovereignty of the GM when establishing truth in the game. How can we advance that concept? What knowledge or skill can we apply that improves the game by elevating "no myth" game elements?

To quote Luke, every word of that was wrong.

No Myth means that the story and backstory are built in entirely during play - there are no notes. And, generally, No Myth play is done with systems that empower players to create backstory that's binding on the GM. A classic example is searching for a secret door and a success means there's a secret door there that was found. A failure might be no secret door, or a secret door that had monsters hiding behind it. What No Myth isn't is the checkout that noting is true until the DM says so. That's, like, almost entirely opposite.

This post makes your earlier claim of understanding Story Now games to be strongly in doubt.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

No Myth means that the story and backstory are built in entirely during play - there are no notes.

From the linked article: "... the reason it's called No Myth [is] nothing you haven't said to the group exists." There is no limit or restriction on worldbuilding, at least not defined in this article.

I stand by my assessment. As the GM, I'm free to make things up for the game and to present them at any time. The only restriction is that I can't contradict something that's been established.

No Myth play is done with systems that empower players to create backstory that's binding on the GM.

I realize there are games that share traditional GM responsibilities with players, even to the point where there is no GM. These game start by recognizing a fact of role-playing ~ No Myth ~ and embracing that fact to the point where it's a defined mechanic.

I'm still looking for an answer to the question.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Phoenix Command is pretty advanced.

One off-shoot of Phoenix Command is called Living Steel. The System Mastery podcast did a review of that one. My takeaway from that review is that, while the game is excessively complex in many ways, it still uses 3d6 for determining characters stats, and the primary complaint from fans of the game is that it is not complex enough.

 

[Wicht]

From the linked article: "... the reason it's called No Myth [is] nothing you haven't said to the group exists." There is no limit or restriction on worldbuilding, at least not defined in this article.

I stand by my assessment. As the GM, I'm free to make things up for the game and to present them at any time. The only restriction is that I can't contradict something that's been established.

You forgot the very next sentence: " "You", in this case, includes the GM as well as the other players. "

 

[Ovinomancer]

From the linked article: "... the reason it's called No Myth [is] nothing you haven't said to the group exists." There is no limit or restriction on worldbuilding, at least not defined in this article.

I stand by my assessment. As the GM, I'm free to make things up for the game and to present them at any time. The only restriction is that I can't contradict something that's been established.

:/

I'm a bit stumped, honestly. Did you read past the first sentence of the section? Did you post the link thinking no one else would read past the first sentence of the section? I only ask because the second sentence totally refutes your assertion.

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

So, like, totally what I said. You may want to find just enough humility to not assume you have a better grasp of styles you don't use because you skimmed a single blog entry.

I realize there are games that share traditional GM responsibilities with players, even to the point where there is no GM. These game start by recognizing a fact of role-playing ~ No Myth ~ and embracing that fact to the point where it's a defined mechanic.

Considering you're wrong about how No Myth works, you may not have the best grasp of these playstyles. Given you're kinda lumping Story Now with narrative sharing games, I'm fairly confident of this. 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). Assuming that you can understand just by skimming a few articles (especially those articles, which aren't super clear unless you're versed in the theory underpinning them) is a great way to be totally wrong about them.

I'm still looking for an answer to the question.

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, and that's nonsensical both fron my experience as an engineer and my experience with games. You don't work on a process without a concrete outcome as the goal, and that goal really can't be more process.

So, instead of concentrating on some concept of "more process is better", start with.your goals in play: what do you want in play. Then look for tools to enable that. Don't look for more complex tools on ther assumption they will improve play -- that almost never actually happens. When you find a tool, evaluate it on not only if it achieves the outcome, but also on how much overhead burden it imposes on you and your players. It may be that the outcome is not worth the effort. This is actually my opinion of 3.x as a ruleset -- too much work for not enough payout. You may, of course, have a completely different opinion, which is why I can't answer your question without concrete play goals.

 

[Obryn]

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.

I found the linked blog a huge, bloated mess from someone who has mistaken world building for game design.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Considering you're wrong about how No Myth works, you may not have the best grasp of these playstyles. Given you're kinda lumping Story Now with narrative sharing games, I'm fairly confident of this. 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). Assuming that you can understand just by skimming a few articles (especially those articles, which aren't super clear unless you're versed in the theory underpinning them) is a great way to be totally wrong about them.

Not totally wrong. I mean, even if you only know the surface details, that's often sufficient to determine whether something is or is-not a particular other thing, as long as you know what that other thing looks like.

If I just skim those articles (which I've apparently done two or three times in the past, but forgotten about), then that's enough for me to decide that I don't like those styles. They are much like each other, in that they are both equally not-like some other thing. The differences between them seem minor to me, because I don't care about that branch of games at all; in much the same way that all wood-peckers look alike to me. I'm sure that the differences are more meaningful to people who play those types of games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not totally wrong. I mean, even if you only know the surface details, that's often sufficient to determine whether something is or is-not a particular other thing, as long as you know what that other thing looks like.

If I just skim those articles (which I've apparently done two or three times in the past, but forgotten about), then that's enough for me to decide that I don't like those styles. They are much like each other, in that they are both equally not-like some other thing. The differences between them seem minor to me, because I don't care about that branch of games at all; in much the same way that all wood-peckers look alike to me. I'm sure that the differences are more meaningful to people who play those types of games.

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

I really don't care if you or he don't like it; that's absolutely no skin off my nose. Any fun I have playing pretend elves my way is in no way dependent on how you play pretend elves.