new preview DMG2

[fanboy2000]

Um, why do you ask? Reading the preview, the cooperative storytelling elements they are suggesting aren't a replacement for mechanics. They look to be more about adventure design and structure, plot hook development, and other things for which there is no mechanic!

1. I believe he said that he read the preview up thread. 2. It seems like he's talking about the definitions of storytelling and roleplaying, rather than an attack on the play style of people who say they are engaged in collaborative storytelling.

Well, here's the question - is your opinion based upon the evidence presented in the preview, or upon fear that they're changing the game?

I don't know, but I suspect it's neither.

[/quote]The latter - reacting from habit, pre-formed opinoin, or fear of change is kind of old fart territory. I mean, nobody calls the 70-year old who goes skydiving an old fart, right? Only the folks who get stuck in their ways, unwilling to try new stuff are called that.[/QUOTE]Again, I think he's talking about the definitions of words. I'm probably crazy, but I would bet that if Barastrondo observed ExploderWizard's game he'd call it "collaborative storytelling" while ExploderWizard would eschew the label as being inaccurate.

For what it's worth, I generally agree with ExploderWizard's description of the game:

a game of heroic fantasy wherein the players roleplay fictional characters having adventures. These adventures might have the makings of a great story at some point.

Group storytelling would come later as the participants tell the tale of thier escapades at a con or something.

This describes how I, as a DM, approach the game. On Saturday, we had "The Adventures of Three Guys Who Find an Oracle You Can Take Apart." Trust me, you want the good parts version. The unedited version that one would get if they simple watched the PC explore the area would bore you. It would bore anyone who wasn't there.

I think there is a useful difference between roleplaying and collaborative storytelling: a story told collaboratively can be interesting to people who aren't in on the tell. Example: I was at a World Con one year where Tad Williams, Phil Foglio, Terry Pratchett, and an editor/writer from Uncle John's Bathroom Reader told a collaborative story. It was awesome. By contrast, an RPG game really isn't that interesting to the people who aren't playing it. I've seen people watch games I've ran and games I've played in and they never seem as fascinated by the experience as they would be if they were watching TV.

I'd say feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the internet.

 

[DracoSuave]

My complaint with this chapter is that it should have been in the DMG 1.


Seriously tho, D&D needs moar of this, given that you need a narrative for Epic Destinies to really work as they should.

It doesn't have to be a complex narrative. Look at God of War. 'You are really angry so you are killing your way up the food chain' is a narrative.

But narrative -is- important, because it provides context to all that monster slaying and motivation in combat other than 'Kill and Survive' which actually can be used to make the tactical side deeper and more involving.

 

[Rechan]

Setting aside the three page derailment...

This reads like the D&D blogs I read now. It seems like the DMG2 is turning to what Indie RPGs have been doing for a long while: different methods of approaching a game.

This preview just proves why I want this book so bad.

 

[N0Man]

Dragon article defending 4E's roleplay's incentive by removing skills (lol).

...

Too bad we can't talk about this without 3E and 4E fans jump to defend their "true editions of D&D"...

I'm a little confused by this post, since on one hand it sounds like you are mocking that design decision (with the "lol), and on the other hand lament not being able to have a discussion without people defending their preferences.

Should we take this to mean that we shouldn't be on the defense, just the offense?

This might be the topic of a another subject completely, but I actually very much support the statement. I don't like relying on a skill system to define your characters interests, background and secondary skills. The chances of most of these skills coming up in play were pretty low, even without taking into account the extreme variability based on the setting, DM, and other factors.

I actually found 3.x skill systems to be rather confining. Most classes had limited skill ranks in the first place, and had skills that they were expected to have because of their class. Choosing background skills was a sacrifice which was frequently punished when encounters came, and rarely mattered (at least mattered 10 times less often than skills you could have picked).

I'll take the 4E approach of just stating backgrounds (one of which can even have a mechanical bonus) and allowing them to either perform certain basic actions or give them a small bonus to related actions.

The idea that numbers on a character sheet, dice rolls, and specific roleplay rules are required to roleplay is completely counterintuitive to me. I've had tons of fun playing a game of Clue where we all roleplayed our characters, and Clue has no mechanic at all to encourage or define roleplay.

That said, I think the first DMG was the best 4E book published, and probably my favorite D&D book every published, and I'm really looking forward to the DMG2.

 

[Hussar]

I think that is helpful to divide storytelling and roleplaying advice. While they can both be utilized in a tabletop game they are sort of at odds with one another. One cannot simultaneously stoytell and roleplay and vice versa.

Going upthread a second to your example of trying to rescue your brother. Ok, fine. You decide to rescue your brother because he's your brother.

What about this? Your character returns from a hard day of adventuring. Instead of buying new equipment and whatnot, he blows his stash on a three week bender of hookers and beer.

Am I roleplaying or storytelling?

And, there was one line back there about the "character" making decisions. Sorry, the character never, ever makes decisions. All decisions are made by the player. The character has no motivations because he doesn't exist. Just because I decide to do something now based on game mechanics does not make the decision any more or less motivated.

Basically, I get from your definition of role play, that the only way you can really role play is if you are employing only one style of decision making process. Every dungeon will be searched. Every PC becomes a special forces operative as soon as game starts. Because, that's the only way you can operate if you decide that you will only make decisions that are best in a given situation.

That is certainly one way to role play. But, it's not the only way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Some storytelling techniques have always been part of roleplaying games, for example control of pacing, scene-switching (when the PCs are split up), creating mood and atmosphere and bringing characters to life.

Other stuff such as cut scenes and flashbacks may not have appeared until the 80s or early 90s. The original WEG Star Wars rpg, published in 1987, has advice about starting sessions 'In Media Res', clearly a storytelling technique.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Going upthread a second to your example of trying to rescue your brother. Ok, fine. You decide to rescue your brother because he's your brother.

What about this? Your character returns from a hard day of adventuring. Instead of buying new equipment and whatnot, he blows his stash on a three week bender of hookers and beer.

Am I roleplaying or storytelling?

You could do that either way. If you play out your interactions and roleplay the partying then it could be a roleplaying situation. If you just narrate the story of how you partied and mark off the money then you have told a story.

And, there was one line back there about the "character" making decisions. Sorry, the character never, ever makes decisions. All decisions are made by the player.

This of course, true.

The character has no motivations because he doesn't exist. Just because I decide to do something now based on game mechanics does not make the decision any more or less motivated.

This isn't. The character can have motivations. It is simply up to the player to define and act on them.

Basically, I get from your definition of role play, that the only way you can really role play is if you are employing only one style of decision making process. Every dungeon will be searched. Every PC becomes a special forces operative as soon as game starts. Because, that's the only way you can operate if you decide that you will only make decisions that are best in a given situation.

I don't know really where you are getting that. You certainly can make far from optimal decisions for character based reasons while roleplaying. If the character you are playing is comical and not super competent it would be very strange to suddenly become a top notch operator in a tactical situation, although that itself is an interesting character concept.

I think a common terminology problem is that some people consider any non-combat activities in the game as "storytelling" when they may actually just be roleplaying out a situation without rolling dice.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One cannot simultaneously stoytell and roleplay and vice versa.

Well storytelling is much more the province of the GM whereas roleplaying (both in the sense of acting and taking on a role) is more the province of the players. Obviously not everyone can speak at once (at least not usefully), so the distinction could be something as simple as the distinction between GM speaking and players speaking.

For me an example of storytelling would be the GM delivering an evocative description of an evil swamp. Now the players probably would be expected to clam up while the GM gives his big purple prose description. In a sense they are not roleplaying in that moment, they are the audience (though they are still roleplaying in the sense of participating in a roleplaying game.) But that kind of switch takes place all the time in rpgs. Audience member, actor, player in a game. Sometimes you are more than one, simultaneously.

However the players *could* interrupt at any moment if they feel the need, even though it might be bad form. Storytelling isn't really curbing the players freedom here.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You could do that either way. If you play out your interactions and roleplay the partying then it could be a roleplaying situation. If you just narrate the story of how you partied and mark off the money then you have told a story.

So storytelling, for you, means no interaction. How then, could there be such a thing as collaborative storytelling? One writer might do a chapter, or a paragraph, or a sentence then let another take over. This is storytelling but it's also interactive.

Another example - interactive fiction. Fighting fantasy books, Pick-A-Path To Adventure and so forth. There is a story, but the reader can make some important decisions, so it can't be an either/or. There's both playing a role and storytelling going on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So storytelling, for you, means no interaction. How then, could there be such a thing as collaborative storytelling? One writer might do a chapter, or a paragraph, or a sentence then let another take over. This is storytelling but it's also interactive.

Yes. Storytelling, interactive method, and still no roleplaying. Once Upon a Time is a great game game for this.

Another example - interactive fiction. Fighting fantasy books, Pick-A-Path To Adventure and so forth. There is a story, but the reader can make some important decisions, so it can't be an either/or. There's both playing a role and storytelling going on.

Pretty much just storytelling. If you could roleplay in a pick-a-path then you would be able to look at the presented options and say " I don't want to do any of that, instead I would......", but you cannot. You are limited by the options presented in the story.