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

[ShinHakkaider]

Don't take it personally. I am addressing the example from the podcast in your post and not your post as a whole. The example from the podcast has a context of its own. Quoting you is merely incidental to your having cited the example of the podcast previously in this thread. As to your point, since you require my attention to it, I do not necessarily disagree but was not driven to comment on it. The example of what was mentioned in the podcast or, more accurately, your impression of what was mentioned in the podcast, took my attention and echoed a sentiment I had observed previously and felt compelled to address.

My apologies for the confusion.

Yeah, didn't mean for my response to come out harshly at all and I didnt take it personally. No harm no foul, its just that I meant for the whole thing to be taken in context. Youre right about the podcast quote, but even then I pulled the quote out of it's original context which was part of a mail bag Q & A thing they were doing.

No apologies needed D00d.

 

[Raven Crowking]

[cheeky mode]Just maybe the industry should embrace "role-playing games" and try to demonstrate why CRPGs are not role-playing games.[/cheeky mode]

 

[pawsplay]

Radio is also dying - people want choices, they want personalized entertainment.

And yet... Dallas radio was shook up by the invasion of Jack FM. The basic format is "songs people like" with little or no genre restrictions, no celebrity DJs, no requests. It's like someone put 300 awesome songs on a computer and hit random play. Yet it rolled over the other stations like a juggernaut.

 

[gizmo33]

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).

I would hazard a guess that 99% of the population (non RPG'ers as well) would not recognize your definition of story telling. Story telling is when someone sits down and tells you something that happens - A to Z. There's no aspect of audience choice in conventional story telling. A movie, or book that tells a story - you read it, it tells you what happens. The problem with conflating what you're talking about with story telling is that people don't really preserve choices a lot of times in story telling gaming. They don't accept the fact that you may or may not side with gollum, for example.

I could point to any given instance of this on this board - PC death for example: your PC died, get over it and make up a new one. but NO, the DM had his heart set on that particular PC because he had all these events and stuff mapped out. That's the railroad aspect of story telling - rather than being prepared to handle events, the DM instead has a preference about what they should be, and the real choice that players have in the game is proportionately diminished.

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.")

And IMO this is where the chinks in the story telling armor start to appear. "Players deliberately strying to put the story off track" ???? Remember - the story is something (supposedly) that happens AFTER the events, then how can they pull the events "off the track". Don't the events create the track?

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.

This seems to be to contradict your example of players pulling the story off track. The players decide to give the ringwraiths the ring, for example. Now the ringwraiths having the ring IS the story - so why would a DM have an opinion that that's a bad thing? Because the DM is really engineering the result and claiming not to - otherwise he would just roll with it and there would be no example of a "good story" or "bad story" - just events and the way they were adjucated.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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).

Oh. You mean Endless Quest books.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think it's very apparent that the team at WotC understands the tactical, Gamist appeal that's at the core of D&D, and they're working hard to make D&D do that as well, and as easily, as it possibly can, ideally in ways that MMORPGs/CRPGs don't.

Completely agree, both with your observation and the strategy.

If Mearls wasn't the architect of this focus, I would be surprised if he isn't at least its most vocal champion at this point.

 

[gizmo33]

I know people have a hard time grasping that story based gaming doesn't have to be railroading. Heck, I've posted my notes and then the results of the game to prove it before. But just because you want to guide things into a intro-expo-climax-coda structure and push personal conflicts at the players does not mean you are railroading them.

Well look - since you're typing the word "no" more than once I realize there's an emotional issue here and I'll try to be sensitive and understand what you're saying. But I've always had a difficult time in sorting out what "story tellers" say about gaming, and at times the statements seem to flat-out contradict each other.

Once you want to "guide" events in a certain pattern, then you're railroading. I really think it's as simple as that. Sure, there are degrees. For example, you might have expect a BBEG to escape the final battle, and instead he gets killed. Either way, you construct telling about the events in such a way that it seems like a climax. You respected the results of the dice, and made a story of them. So that's story telling but it's still a game, right?

Well, maybe not. The problem IMO is that the examples don't always work out so nicely. The DM is still oriented towards engineering results in such a way as to produce a desired result. So what if his skills enable him to work with a random set of events - the desire for a certain outcome is enough, IMO, to lead to a situation where, because of fatigue, lack of ideas, or mistake, the DM is going to step outside of the role of adjudicator of events and instead become a determiner of events in a way that excludes the random chance and player choice that is a fundemental part of the RAW.

Having your heart set on a certain outcome, whether it's generally defined (ex. intro-coda thing) or specifically (the BBEG will escape) puts the DM into a similar box - it's just a matter of degree, and a matter of time until the DM starts fudging. It's a matter of orienting the DM into thinking that he has to produce a result according to a certain pattern - in a way that exceeds the capabilities of the tools that he has to work with.

 

[Glyfair]

Once you want to "guide" events in a certain pattern, then you're railroading. I really think it's as simple as that.

We just had a thread on this recently. The general opinion was that it's not railroading unless it's "bad railroading."

Some quotes from the thread most seem to see the trend:

The plot that actually lets PC actions influence its structure is, to me, the opposite of a railroad.

I don't think non-railroading means a plot-free game. To me it means that the GM offers options and gives the players the freedom to choose any of those options or come up with something of their own, rather than trying to push them in a certain specific direction.

Railroading is as Thornir describes it, the PCs actions do nothing to affect the progress of the plot from point A to B to C.

You may have a different definition of railroad. However, if you stick to it you are going to be discussing something else than what most people here are discussing when they are discussing railroading. (yes, there are other definitions of railroading out there. Most aren't using the one you are, though).

If you want to go further with this, I suggest that thread (or start another on the definition of railroading).

 

[Belen]

Completely agree, both with your observation and the strategy.

If Mearls wasn't the architect of this focus, I would be surprised if he isn't at least its most vocal champion at this point.

Otherwise known as "How to make D&D more boring?"

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

We just had a thread on this recently. The general opinion was that it's not railroading unless it's "bad railroading."

Some quotes from the thread most seem to see the trend:




You may have a different definition of railroad. However, if you stick to it you are going to be discussing something else than what most people here are discussing when they are discussing railroading. (yes, there are other definitions of railroading out there. Most aren't using the one you are, though).

If you want to go further with this, I suggest that thread (or start another on the definition of railroading).

There are times when what most call 'railroading' is the lesser of two evils. If the party are twiddling their thumbs or bantering for hours in a way that doesn't move anything forward (as opposed to thinking about what to do next, or looking over their options and capabilities), the DM may have no choice but to either gently nudge them into doing -something- to move forward, or to put them in a situation where they have no choice but to respond. This would be railroading, at least temporarily, but it would break the standstill.