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

[Glyfair]

I don't like "story telling game" - reminds me too much of railroading, and if I wanted railroading and limited options I'd go with a MMORPG.

This makes story telling pretty much impossible because there's no story to tell until after the action is over and at that point folks are probably to busy declaring actions for the next round of events.

One of the strongest GMs in this area is unabashedly a storytelling GM. However, he strongly believes that "dice tell the story." He can name large numbers of dramatic storytelling moments that happened because of a random die roll. Entire plot lines he had planned for that were useless because of a die roll or player choice, yet the story was stronger for those rolls and choices.

He would modify your statement to "the story isn't done until after the action is over." However, he would consider those actions and random elements to be part of the story, while it's happening.

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I see a philosophical lean not unlike D&D alignments here:

First, we have Tactics vs. Immersion (Priorities)

Then, we have Form vs. Content (Methods)

Those on the side of Tactics would want to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

Those on the side of Immersion would rather immerse themselves in the world, [edit 8/14, 2:49]or alternatively[/edit] live through their character.

Those on the side of Form would approach things from the perspective of the medium, rather than the message. Anyone familiar with Marshall McLuhan knows what I'm talking about.

Those on the side of Content would approach things from the perspective of gaming content, and put formal issues on the backburner unless the situation specifically called for them.

The purest form of Tactics/Form mentality will likely lean towards Munchkin, WoW and the like, due to preconceived notions of the types of game. They will probably focus on levels, xp, and the like exclusively when playing D&D, and they will likely run characters not QUITE like Pun-Pun, but definitely in the same spirit of optimization. Those really interested in pushing the rules of the game to the very limit, in an attempt to come as close to "winning" as one can, ideally as soon as possible, would be Tactics/Form.

The purest form of Immersion/Form mentality will likely lean towards Vampire the Masquerade and other obvious immersive games, and freely invoke Rem's Law whenever tactical issues are prioritized. They would think very little of the mechanics and much more of their character. They don't let the dice get "in the way of" interacting with the D&D world. Ryan Dancey seems to be channeling this alignment in the OP, albeit more realistically then my purist hypothetical version of the I/F mindset.

The purest form of Tactics/Content mentality will lean towards freeform games and classless ones like Shadowrun, and they would be fond of the mechanical aspects of any game, regardless of medium, and it would likely approach D&D as a specific challenge to building a really good character, and work with the system in order to create a character as good as possible for a certain situation (be it diplomatic, combative, stealth, or anything of the sort.) They would want to aid the party by fulfilling their character's archetype to the best of their ability. Ryan Stoughton's E6, which is all about mechanical balance within an existing ruleset, while maintaining the big picture, has shades of T/C.

The purest form of Immersion/Content mentality will likely lean towards many CRPGs, or d20 variants based on existing popular fiction, and they will prioritize their character and their setting, but they won't constrain themselves in either. Many of these would probably want to introduce a crossover character (like a Keyblade Knight) into D&D, and see how a crossover character's mentality would fit in the context of the campaign. IC
Dungeonmasters could easily lean towards outside inspiration for their segments. The Lunar fan who wants to introduce a Dragonmaster PrC is an example of Immersion/Content mentality.

As you can imagine, one can be neutral toward either, or both. I would be considered either Tactics/Content or Neutral/Content, depending on whether I'm playing or mastering. As a player, I am TC nearly all the way. As a DM and a designer, I swing both ways with regards to priorities (T/I). Overall, I would be NC because I can easily go one way or the other if required.

 

[AstroCat]

Maybe we just need a new name for it? Call it "Collective tabletop non-electronic blogging" or something full of popular buzzwords.

Still, I think a lot of the stigma is not necessarily stuck to roleplaying, but D&D itself. For instance, D&D Tactics is due out for the PSP this week, and just about every review of it used the terms "nerd" or "geek" or some variant. Which you don't usually see when it's a conversion of some other p&p RPG (though not that there are many of those, these days).

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.

 

[Glyfair]

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

I consider these different things. A storytelling player* is one who wants to have dramatic events happen. Typically they prefer the cinematic devices including foreshadowing, climax, etc. They want to look back at the game and see the story the group told together.

The "roleplaying" player (I think "character immersion" player is probably a less confusing term) is the one who wants to immerse himself in his character and the world.

They tend to be closely related, and usually player that fits one type has elements of the other. However, I find that each type dislikes things the other type does. For example, the "character immersive" type will do what he feels his character will do, often to the detriment of the group story. The storytelling player tends to get irritated by this and considers it selfish behavior.

* I'm not using this term as one excluding DMs. DMs are playing at the table as well.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Dude....I have not met anyone who buys or uses Mongoose products in 2 years. That may just be my area, but from conversations on ENW and CM, I believe you're smoking crack.

I was going to ignore this. Then I was going to make a comment about the accuracy of this evidence being in the same ballpark as the first post, but others beat me to that.

Instead, I'll explain my post.

Mongoose brings in. . . a 'few'. . . million a year (it is a little few, not a big few ). It doesn't really matter if you believe that or not, but you should consider that we have 24 full-time employees, 3000 sq. ft. of offices in the UK, a miniatures production facility in the US, and we are still bringing in new licences. We just brought in about half a million's Dollars worth of printing equipment so we can avoid the inevitable route to China. Despite games like A Call to Arms and Battlefield Evolution, the majority of that is built on RPGs.

Now, our income is in Pound Sterling and, of course, the majority of our revenue is from wholesale. So, double a few million to change it into Dollars and, well, see where I am going?

_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!

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I consider these different things. A storytelling player* is one who wants to have dramatic events happen. Typically they prefer the cinematic devices including foreshadowing, climax, etc. They want to look back at the game and see the story the group told together.

The "roleplaying" player (I think "character immersion" player is probably a less confusing term) is the one who wants to immerse himself in his character and the world.

They tend to be closely related, and usually player that fits one type has elements of the other. However, I find that each type dislikes things the other type does. For example, the "character immersive" type will do what he feels his character will do, often to the detriment of the group story. The storytelling player tends to get irritated by this and considers it selfish behavior.

* I'm not using this term as one excluding DMs. DMs are playing at the table as well.

Good point. Perhaps I could replace the 'and' in the post you're quoting to 'or'?

Both types are looking at it from the view of the setting. However, the ways they handle it are quite a bit apart. There are Lawful/Neutral disagreements too.

 

[JDJblatherings]

So what? Do you think, Ryan Dancey doesn't know that? Why the hell did he wrote this than?



The analogy is perfect. Computer games also came AFTER the tabletop RPGs. The fact is, the it has changed the situation. Do you go to the cinema to watch news? I doubt it. Yet it was common, when there was no TV. Instead cinemas improved the experience they offer... (sound, 3D etc. and make artifical "hype" for why it is good to go to cinema instead of sitting home watching TV). Got it?

the analogy is awful. TV whomped film and sure the film industry survives...DVD sales for home TV viewing keep it afloat and is where the future profit growth is for the film industry.

 

[Mark]

On the latest version of the WOTC D&D Podcast Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan mention watching a group of kids during a test group. They mention that the kids got almost everything wrong ruleswise, but they got the general gist of it and waaaaaay more importantly THEY HAD FUN.

This sort of thinking always felt like a poor rationalization to me. It makes an excuse for an awkward product by inferring that a product that was understood and properly played might not have been fun and therefore well-enough should be left alone. It leads to a situation where the awkward product, which might not actually be any fun once properly learned, can actually drive away the players in the long term. I want players who understand what they are doing *and* having fun. If having fun is more important than other factors, then I counter that understanding *and* having fun is MOST important, and that settling for less is a doomed strategy.

 

[Glyfair]

Good point. Perhaps I could replace the 'and' in the post you're quoting to 'or'?

Sorry, you hit a pet peeve of mine and I got distracted

Both types are looking at it from the view of the setting. However, the ways they handle it are quite a bit apart. There are Lawful/Neutral disagreements too.

Well, Ryan did point out we need "all of these people need to be made co-equal for the hobby to succeed long term." I think that is an important point.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The farther we get into 3.x the more I think that maybe TSR didn't fragment its market so much as it is the nature of the RPG market to fragment.

While players might come together long enough to learn a new edition they eventually drift off to continue the search for their own individually distinct 'perfect' game. Splinters and pieces.