Players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play

[aramis erak]

I'll note that the Story Now and No Myth, while different, do correlate. Many Story Now games encourage a No Myth approach. And both are doable in almost any game system that doesn't directly require background definitions as part of resolution.

Yeah maybe, I see how that would work, though given how much of it and how to perform it I'm picking up from the OSR community and... the OS community? that feels like a weird fit.

It's not a weird fit. A significant subset of the OSR crowd are story-focused using rules light versions of pre-3E D&D as a scaffold for character definition, magic, and combat. Everything else about that playstyle can be very much say-yes, story-now, and non-combat... and even Story Now and No Myth.

Well, lets be honest, plot emerges either way, at least viewed in retrospect (which is the only plot can be viewed in an RPG, IMO).

Then you have a blindspot.
Plot can be created in a variety of ways, many of which can be created before play. Plot unrevealed to players may be of no visibility to the players and yet still affect play.

In story now play, the plot can be (and often is) entirely player directed. This happens often in Burning Wheel... the players beliefs are defining a plot, and while it's incomplete, and incoherent, it's visible before play begins, and can change during play.

Maybe. I know some people object to Edwards' description of purist-for-system simulationism, though when I first read it having played RM and BRP/RQ-type games near-exclusively for nearly 15 years I thought it was revelationary.

Part of the problem is that Dr. Edwards has, over time, altered all the definitions from his early 2000's definitions to something else... his shifting the definitions coincides with an ever-decreasing input from others outside his echo-chamber....

Hygienic / Unhygienic was my own choice of words. I mean it only in regard to the game we all have agreed to play or are discussing. I am not speaking to different sorts of games at all. I am a big believer in a shared play agenda, that at any given table we all need to be striving for the same sort of play experience. One of the best ways I have found to get on the same page is just to have us all take on the agenda of the game we are playing.

Games like Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, and Masks have certain expectations that both players and GMs are expected to follow. I believe in treating the instructions to the GM just like any other rule, subject to change if we all agree, but binding otherwise. This is particularly important for Story Now play because there is an expectation that players will invest in their characters, but only approach play from a position of character advocacy. That leaves you in a pretty vulnerable place (given the emotional heft we are aiming for) if other players or the GM uses their authority in ways that run counter to the spirit of play. If they use your vulnerable place, but are not willing to go there with you.

That rules approach is one I tend to share. A social contract.

I think I have a bit of a different view, and reading Ron's... posts, are bringing it into crystallization.

Be careful in reading Dr. Edwards works - he shifts the definitions over time, and has, at times, claimed that there is no middle ground. He's claimed there's no middle ground between the gamist and the simulationist, nor simulationist & narrativist...

The first hurdle for running D&D or OSR as story now is that the mechanics really don't help, and in places even push back against it. This is less of an issue with rules light OSR games than it is with D&D (or Pathfinder, I'm afraid).

Early editions of D&D (OE, OE+Supps, Holmes, Moldvay-Cook B/X, and Mentzer's B/E don't have much to get in the way... Most of the OSR games are not as light as BX; BX as written is pretty light, but so many add stuff from AD&D into it that they're really AD&D light not BX clones. Once you start adding classes and such, it rapidly loses the simplicity.

Obviously more collaborative approaches aren't going to work if you don't have people you can effectively collaborate with. Even in a less collaborative environment (I run some sandbox games and gamist OSR as well) I really would not want to run a game for folks I could not trust on a creative level because at the very least they need to create interesting characters to play and come up with creative solutions to problems they face at the table.

I would never suggest that everyone should play the sort of games I really enjoy or that they somehow missing out. The alchemy at the table is critical. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does not. That's true for any creative endeavor.

Fully agree with that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Part of the problem is that Dr. Edwards has, over time, altered all the definitions from his early 2000's definitions to something else... his shifting the definitions coincides with an ever-decreasing input from others outside his echo-chamber....

...

Be careful in reading Dr. Edwards works - he shifts the definitions over time, and has, at times, claimed that there is no middle ground. He's claimed there's no middle ground between the gamist and the simulationist, nor simulationist & narrativist...

Another part of the problem is that literally the only person I can think of who at all regularly cites him or GNS approvingly is @pemerton; for most of the rest of us he's just a guy that wrote a few interesting but highly flawed essays 20 years ago and whose web forum shut down almost a decade ago (1st June 2012) and had fallen out of relevance years before that.

Can I think of interesting things to come out of the Forge? Of course. Fate was incubated there (although had little Forge theory behind it), D. Vincent Baker has done a lot of very good work, and came through the Forge, and I believe My Life With Master and with it story games came from there. But GNS itself is more or less of historical interest only*, and the last RPG work I'm aware of from Edwards was Circle of Hands that raised under $10k on Kickstarter in 2014 and was delivered in early 2015.

* Even on the Forge it was meant to be replaced by the Big Model - which more or less fizzled because it was one of those theories that explained everything, including things that are untrue.

 

[pemerton]

literally the only person I can think of who at all regularly cites him or GNS approvingly is @pemerton

There are other posters on these forums who use "story now", gamism/"step on up" and simulationism as meaningful categories. In this thread, for instance, @kenada has done so.

But my interest is less in those particular categories than in the analysis of systems, techniques and play experiences. Edwards is the best analyst of purist-for-system RPGing I've read (Rolemaster, RuneQuest and the like). He anticipated 6 years in advance the pressure points that would make 4e so controversial. PbtA is a hugely influential movement in RPG play and design, and Vincent Baker notes in Apocalypse World that the design of that system flows straight from Edwards' essay "Story Now".

He's the most insightful writer on RPGing I know. Other insightful writers I've read are Lewis Pulsipher (his work back in the late 70s/early 80s), Luke Crane, Vincent Baker and Robin Laws. But Edwards delivers more insight per sentence than anyone else.

 

[kenada]

I’ve been using his language and discussing the theories in this thread because that seemed to be what other people were doing. I’d rather use language of an imperfect theory and be understood than not and spend pages upon pages haggling over semantics.

I don’t have a particular affinity for it. Story Now seems to be the most developed. You can point to games (PbtA, FitD) as exemplars of it. You can’t really say that for the other approaches. They’re either off doing their own things independently (Step On Up) or barely more than a theoretical concern (the Right to Dream).

Well, there is one part that does appeal to me: incoherence. I think regardless of what your creative agenda actually is, knowing you can’t really mix incompatible elements without screwing it up is useful. I’ve learned that the hard way trying to kit bash elements from various systems while trying to stay true to the originals.

But GNS itself is more or less of historical interest only*, and the last RPG work I'm aware of from Edwards was Circle of Hands that raised under $10k on Kickstarter in 2014 and was delivered in early 2015.

Edwards did Champions Now, which was published last year, though it’s a redesign of the early editions of Champions rather than something completely new.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I’ve been using his language and discussing the theories in this thread because that seemed to be what other people were doing. I’d rather use language of an imperfect theory and be understood than not and spend pages upon pages haggling over semantics.

I don’t have a particular affinity for it. Story Now seems to be the most developed. You can point to games (PbtA, FitD) as exemplars of it. You can’t really say that for the other approaches. They’re either off doing their own things independently (Step On Up) or barely more than a theoretical concern (the Right to Dream).

As I've summarised GNS in the past:
S: This is what Vampire: the Masquerade delivers and it kinda sucks.
N: This is what Vampre: the Masquerade promises. Why can't we have that? Here are some ideas towards it.
G: Hey, what those D&D people is doing is actually pretty cool even if it's not what we do. Possibly we should stop sneering about "Roleplaying not Rollplaying" the way the V:tM books do and learn from them.

Almost everything useful comes out of the part Edwards actually wanted - the N

Well, there is one part that does appeal to me: incoherence. I think regardless of what your creative agenda actually is, knowing you can’t really mix incompatible elements without screwing it up is useful. I’ve learned that the hard way trying to kit bash elements from various systems while trying to stay true to the originals.

On the other hand while this is a point it is a point that doesn't make an entire sword. The other lesson I've learned (and one of the big problems 4e had) is that different people in the group are different and look for different things. Without the ability to handle at least some incoherence at the table you're going to have problems finding and keeping groups for anything other than one-shots. Some coherence is good, purity isn't.

Edwards did Champions Now, which was published last year, though it’s a redesign of the early editions of Champions rather than something completely new.

Fair enough.

 

[Emerikol]

There are other posters on these forums who use "story now", gamism/"step on up" and simulationism as meaningful categories. In this thread, for instance, @kenada has done so.

I've referenced it in the past. I think anyone trying to figure things out is at least worth a read even if I don't embrace the whole theory as perfect. What theory is perfect when it tries to describe humans?

So yeah I agreed with Pemerton on something. Mark it down folks. The date is 5/11/2021.

One big issue I find with theories though is that the person making the theory is always in one of the camps. And as such, they always tend to not fully understand the other camps. We can't even agree on word usage in a consistent way. And that is okay I suppose as long as we can find our camp and be happy there.

 

[Emerikol]

As I've summarised GNS in the past:
S: This is what Vampire: the Masquerade delivers and it kinda sucks.
N: This is what Vampre: the Masquerade promises. Why can't we have that? Here are some ideas towards it.
G: Hey, what those D&D people is doing is actually pretty cool even if it's not what we do. Possibly we should stop sneering about "Roleplaying not Rollplaying" the way the V:tM books do and learn from them.

I've never played Vampire: The Masquerade or any other variation of that game. Why do you think it shot for N and it only resulted in S.

Almost everything useful comes out of the part Edwards actually wanted - the N

I agree that Edwards is likely an N which makes his pronouncements about G and S at least subject to more scrutiny.

On the other hand while this is a point it is a point that doesn't make an entire sword. The other lesson I've learned (and one of the big problems 4e had) is that different people in the group are different and look for different things. Without the ability to handle at least some incoherence at the table you're going to have problems finding and keeping groups for anything other than one-shots. Some coherence is good, purity isn't.

Yeah I don't have that much trouble finding players for my style. Perhaps I'm in an age group that played a particular way and we liked it. Maybe my execution of my own style has "indoctrinated" them to liking my approach. Not sure. I don't find I have to mix it up that much.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've never played Vampire: The Masquerade or any other variation of that game. Why do you think it shot for N and it only resulted in S.

I don't think it really shot for N - I don't think that N and S were particularly defined at the time it was produced. I think it sold itself as "a game of personal horror" and in reality was extremely well presented but a large and intricate game full of detailed superpowers and very few and slightly clunky mechanics about the actually unpleasant side of being a vampire. For a very early 1990s game it was daring and trying to do things - but Edwards was writing a decade later when most of Vampire's players had come directly in to Vampire and found it clunky and wargamy rather than from wargame derived RPGs like D&D, WEG Star Wars, WFRP, and GURPS.

The first game I'm aware of that's genuinely N, and the first actively categorised Storygame was My Life With Master in 2003. (Following the definitions Pendragon is also a Storygame but the term was invented in an RPG.net flamewar where people were denying that MLWM was an RPG because it wasn't open ended and Paul Czege had better things to do so proposed a new term just to get them to shut up).

 

[Emerikol]

The first game I'm aware of that's genuinely N, and the first actively categorised Storygame was My Life With Master in 2003. (Following the definitions Pendragon is also a Storygame but the term was invented in an RPG.net flamewar where people were denying that MLWM was an RPG because it wasn't open ended and Paul Czege had better things to do so proposed a new term just to get them to shut up).

It seems like terms in use can make the gaming life tricky. I mean if I showed up thinking I was going to play and D&D like game and got Blades in the Dark instead I might be thrown for a loop at how the game is so different from my expectations.

I realize we all want to hang onto the roleplaying term. I think it probably either needs to move up and be recognized as a broader category that is basically meaningless in many ways at describing the game or it needs to revert to its traditional meaning. Either way new terms are needed to either put under the umbrella of roleplaying or alongside roleplaying to represent the greater variety of styles better.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It seems like terms in use can make the gaming life tricky. I mean if I showed up thinking I was going to play and D&D like game and got Blades in the Dark instead I might be thrown for a loop at how the game is so different from my expectations.

And if I was expecting a Paizo-style Adventure Path style game and got OSR dungeon crawling I'd be surprised and I know people who'd be thrown for a huge loop. And that's just within the D&D family. Most of the Blades players I know would be more comfortable with an OSR game than most of the Pathfinder players due to the expectation of agency and that the story will be driven by the players, and the comparative mechanical simplicity.

I realize we all want to hang onto the roleplaying term. I think it probably either needs to move up and be recognized as a broader category that is basically meaningless in many ways at describing the game or it needs to revert to its traditional meaning. Either way new terms are needed to either put under the umbrella of roleplaying or alongside roleplaying to represent the greater variety of styles better.

I think Tabletop Roleplaying Game already is the broader category, and that that is its traditional meaning. And that subcategories such as OSR and Storygames already exist and are used usefully. ("Roleplaying" without the Tabletop descriptor has Tabletop in at best third place behind "Bedroom" and "Video Game" with video games also dominating the term RPG).