Ryan Dancey on Redefining the Hobby (Updated: time elements in a storytelling game)

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To me, it seems more like current D&D gives you rules and lets you work out the story.

It's certainly never stopped me and my players from playing very story-driven stuff that's still very clearly D&D. See my Story Hour link for details.

 

[gizmo33]

Those on the side of Story would rather immerse themselves in the world, and live through their character.

I don't consider a story to be immersion. I prefer to immersion to combat, yet I DON'T prefer being lock-stepped through a series of pre-determined events. That is not an uncommon thing - I've encountered it once IRL while gaming and seen it somewhat often since on the internet. Some people prioritize being able to control the direction the game goes, and they say they do this for the sake of the "story". I wish there was some terminology to distinguish between my priorities and these other priorities. IMO the "story" term should be dropped from my style of immersion, because I'm not looking to tell any kind of story - I'm looking to play around with elements of the game.

 

[Glyfair]

Well then, name something that's not a story by that criteria. Looking back on any interesting set of events will lead to the story. IMO the more meaningful definition of story-telling is when you set out to create a series of events A-B-C-D that you think will produce an interesting result. The problem is that engineering the result goes against the fundementals of the game - at least as it is currently defined (IMO there have been no substantial changes in this regard between ODnD and 3.5). There's not a single rule in any edition that I know of that references "story" as a component to deciding on the outcome of an event.

No, I think you are trying to pigeonhole storytelling as a railroad. A better example would be to have a story tree with choices along the way (do you allow gollum to go with you or kick him to the curb? both have consequences).

Of course, a good storytelling GM will be able to handle going off track. What they really hate, though, are players deliberately trying to put the story off track ("Those ringwraiths are tough, I'll just give them the ring.")

Storytelling oriented players are pretty result oriented, and aren't necessarily "method" oriented. If a good story comes out of the game it doesn't matter how it came about.

 

[JDJblatherings]

emphasizing the "story telling" nature of RPGs is disaster if you ask me, look how much people like to sit at home with the family and friends and tell each other original stories...


it is the GAME nature of RPGs that really matters.

 

[freebfrost]

_This_ is why I keep saying the RPG industry is not dying a death. I feel like a voice in the wilderness at times but, from where we are sitting, things are perky!

As an aside, I am glad to hear Mongoose is doing well... as long as you proofread Conan 2nd edtion that is...

Is anyone else intrigued by the timing of these blogs by Ryan? I find that on the eve of GenCon 40, with the "mysterious" WotC announcement, rumors of 4E, and the general feeling that something is in the air, Ryan comes out of the woodwork with these critiques...

Are you going to clue us in Ryan? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[The_Gneech]

Interesting I've been following the development of D&D Tactics and I've actually never seen nerd or geek come up... hhhmmm Either way, I might be a geek, but I'm not a nerd.

The people who disdain gamers, are not going to make (or even recognize) that distinction.

-The Gneech

 

[Gentlegamer]

Dancey's take on the decline of role-playing games confirms what Gary has said recently.

 

[maddman75]

Question: There are many power gamers, many that have some of those conceptions of tabletop gaming. However, how many players are as one-sided about this approach as the hypothetical one in your post?

Of course I have no way to know for certain, but I've known entire gaming groups swallowed by WoW. It gives them the experience they want, and they are often still with the same players, all fighting together over Teamspeak.

For what you're describing, there are just other games that offer that experience better than TRPG.

 

[bento]

Theater is still here. It didn't reinvent itself.

Well cinema certainly did something in the past 57 years since it came under threat from television.

For one thing the "star system" by which studios owned the actor and actress's contracts was abolished. This allowed talent to go from one big picture to another. Look at the movies many actors/actresses in the 1940s and 1950s were in. It wasn't always one big picture after another.

A federal anti-trust suit in the late 1940s unteathered studios from the theater chains. The need for studios to fill the theater pipeline with one to two new movies a week was dead. Studios could now spend more on fewer pictures, rather than having to spend less on more.

Motion picture technology experimented and changed with wider screens and better audio. Also a major shift away from black and white towards color. These new technologies help usher in movies with much larger scope, such as Cleopatra and Lawrence of Arabia. There's a level of technical quality that's just higher when comparing movies (as a whole) from the 1940s to those made in the 1960s.

Hollywood moved away from the Hays Commission, which censored movies as if they were watched by the complete age spectrum, towards the current rating system. This helped liberalize the types of stories which were being presented at the movies. Movies offered more violence, sex, and adult situations than were available through standard broadcast television.

Since the 1970s it's been television that's been catching up with the movies. The mini-series concept helped bring spectacle to the small screen, and cable television brought in some of the grittiness that standard syndicated programming was forced to stay away from.

Being "still here" doesn't necessarily mean "hasn't changed at all with the times."

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I don't consider a story to be immersion. I prefer to immersion to combat, yet I DON'T prefer being lock-stepped through a series of pre-determined events. That is not an uncommon thing - I've encountered it once IRL while gaming and seen it somewhat often since on the internet. Some people prioritize being able to control the direction the game goes, and they say they do this for the sake of the "story". I wish there was some terminology to distinguish between my priorities and these other priorities. IMO the "story" term should be dropped from my style of immersion, because I'm not looking to tell any kind of story - I'm looking to play around with elements of the game.

Given this, from several responders, I can and will rework the axes.

EDIT: In fact, I now have. Immersion better handles the dilemma you've stated. I hope this makes my alignment analogy more useful.