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

[Glyfair]

No matter what rules or business models anybody adopts, nothing will change the fact that roleplaying games are played in and DMed by human beings.

Well Ryan has suggested changing the second part. He's suggesting they be DMed by more than one human being at a time.

I personally think that won't work as an absolute goal. However, the general concept of moving some of the responsibility for the game from the DM to the players (or elsewhere) is a good one. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the DM. I'm suggesting moving some of the weight elsewhere.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

No matter what rules or business models anybody adopts, nothing will change the fact that roleplaying games are played in and DMed by human beings.

Actually, rules can very easily change the "fact" that roleplaying games are DMed by human beings - I've *played* RPGs that were not DMed (or GMed, just so you know this is not a semantic quibble). Are the better? Worse? For the most part, they're just different, and they're different in a variety of ways. They're all, admittedly, played with human beings, though.

An irritating human can even ruin the fun of a game of Chess. Every option beyond that limited set that you add which increases the game's "possibility horizon" amplifies the effects of the human element. For example, the guy that takes forever to take his turn, or who hums tunelessly while you're taking yours, or who throws a fit when things go against him, or who eats nachos and makes a mess out of the components, or ... you get the idea.

Yes. None of those people possess in-game or out-of-game authority over the other players by virtue of the game system, however. Their ability to impair the experience to the point where the only way to win is not to play is limited by their possessing a limited amount of control over said experience.

In D&D, the brilliance of a game session can go beyond the potential of the written rules to express the brilliance of the individuals who are playing. As a game of the imagination, it can go far beyond the letter of the written rule. This open-ended nature allows for imagination, creativity, vision, knowledge and even common sense to supplement the rules and create an infinitely more complex play experience.

The "human element" is what makes D&D great.

Quite possibly so, but you could say this of any RPG, including ones without a GM. Nor does this justify the position that REQUIRING a good if not great GM is a boon to the game.

You're arguing that the BENEFITS of a good if not great GM justify the RISK of an average to poor one. I even largely agree with your conclusion, although I would disagree with some of your reasoning.

What you are not justifying, however, is the position that requiring above-average competence and commitment from one of the players makes the game better. A system that allowed for exceptional play but did not require it would seem to be superior, because it would provide the same reward without the attendant risk.

 

[subrosas]

In WoW or EQ, I have no idea. Such games hold no appeal to me.

Did you misread my original post? It started out by stating that:

Just a few thoughts regarding the growth of games such as WoW vs. the decline of table top games:

I think it's great that you have a very high regard for single player CRPG. That has nothing to do with what I posted.

I disagree. User created content, including on the fly, is more likely to remain the primary distinction.

People have been modding games like Civilization, NWN, etc. for years and then playing them with and against other human beings. I suppose a lot of this depends on what you consider "part of the game." For instance, the modding aspect of NWN was central for many to what the game was...

While these are not Massive online games, Eve Online is, and despite its flaws it remains an interesting experiment.

In retrospect I'd probably add a limit to my argument - it seemed too obvious to mention when I first posted my thoughts, but here goes anyways - user created content is feasible and will increasingly appear in online CRPGs given the restriction that it play by the game's rules and remains computable. Thus a guild of players in a MMoG might create their own town, or city, or even nation state. But they cannot redefine how time works in the game (my original basic point).

Edit: lol, nice self contradiction. My apologies to MoogleEmpMog - for some reason I wrote "CRPGs (massive or not)" in my original post and then jumped on him for talking about single player CRPGs. Bah, I get tired too early these days and stop making sense at an early hour, so I yield the field and return to lurking.

 

[LostSoul]

This is what table top games should be emphasizing: teaching gm's how to on-the-fly alter the narrative flow (time granularity, etc.) as the players gain or lose interest; providing support for quick changes in narrative flow (i.e. quickly resolved rules for when players are bored, detailed rules for when players appear intensely engages, etc.). I should be able to quickly and easily convert a mook into a boss, and vice versa.

This seems easy enough. Allow players to change the pacing.

eg. Let's say we're cleaning out a dungeon room-by-room and I'm getting bored. I can say, "You know, I'm getting bored; I want to make a Dungeon-wise roll to find the lost treasure of clan MacGuffin."

Success: "You find the treasure, and the great wyrm that watches it is sleeping on the job."

Failure: "You find the treasure, and a dragon guarding it."

Whether or not the group is okay with this roll is a different issue (of people enjoying the same things).

 

[RFisher]

I think your ideal gateway RPG is largely mythical. I think we are distracted by the fact that historically RPGs have had a gateway RPG - D&D. That changed a bit during the 90s when Vampire started growing. I know that Vampire brought in a lot of roleplayers who would never have gotten in through D&D.

I think, in a more realistic world, that there would be several "gateway RPGs."

Sure. I was painting in broad strokes. Not everyone comes to the hobby through D&D. (My first regular group played Traveller.)

But, there is no denying that D&D still dominates the market in an unbelievably huge way. (Hasn't Vampire "lost ground" vs. D&D since 3e?) That means that it is the gateway for a lot of people. More importantly, though, is the potential that market dominance has for being a better gateway. Not the only gateway, but it could be the most effective one.

 

[Rothe]

Considering that Ryan is pretty clear about advocating GMLite or GMLess play, I'd say what you see him saying is very much not what he's actually saying.

Ryan is advocating a system in which the players take a more direct level of control over the story via metagame and narrative mechanics, distributed or nonexistent GMing and other methods of shared authority introduced in the indie gaming scene.

I wouldn't agree with GMless play. What does he mean by story? When I think control over the story it is players actions which determine which way it goes, i.e., there is no plot protection for anyone. The BBEG could die in the first encounter by bad luck or thinking outside the box by players.

What I thought he was saying is when you approach a cooridior player 1 pipes in "OK this corrdior has a trap, I'm going to disarm it and if I succeed I find a +1 sword." That I wouldn't care for as a player or GM. I'm assuming the players are being reasonable here within the group dynamic. Player suggestions on the setting components they would like, speculations on the what and why of what is really going on in the world are great and I use them. I'll also use player metagame ideas about what would make sense for their opponents to do. But there is no surprise or sense of discovery if I as a player define the obstacles ahead of me, and even worse if I assume the outcome of them to the extent I think Ryan is suggesting.

It sounds to me like those writing exercises where I write a paragraph, then someone else writes one, etc.

 

[BryonD]

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

Of course, there's no way at all to say if people PLAY this way or the opposite beyond anecdotal evidence and that's not terribly helpful.

For my part, I prefer this approach. I can do the story part just fine on my own and would very much prefer to have the rules good and spelled out so its one less thing to think about while keeping the story, itself, going.

AMEN!!!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Edit: lol, nice self contradiction. My apologies to MoogleEmpMog - for some reason I wrote "CRPGs (massive or not)" in my original post and then jumped on him for talking about single player CRPGs. Bah, I get tired too early these days and stop making sense at an early hour, so I yield the field and return to lurking.

No worries.

 

[ST]

I wouldn't agree with GMless play. What does he mean by story? ...

What I thought he was saying is when you approach a cooridior player 1 pipes in "OK this corrdior has a trap, I'm going to disarm it and if I succeed I find a +1 sword." That I wouldn't care for as a player or GM. ... But there is no surprise or sense of discovery if I as a player define the obstacles ahead of me, and even worse if I assume the outcome of them to the extent I think Ryan is suggesting.

Just FYI, there are actually games that work this way (Donjon, for one), and they're pretty fun. By which I mean, they allow you to modify the game world, not that they let you define all the conflicts and fiat all the outcomes -- obviously that's never going to be fun.

Many more games allow you to narrate in minor changes with a successful roll or expenditure of a resource.

One thing that may be tripping you up is a focus on the imagined environment as "the point" of the game. I've been in lots of games where the scene details are changeable by the players (for instance, a Zelazny-style Chronicles of Amber game where you could, in character, say "I round the corner and find a magic sword"), and those games still had interesting conflicts. You just didn't make the stuff you could do "effortlessly" the focus of the conflict.

I see that you prioritize things like "surprise" and "sense of discovery", so it sounds like a coherent imagined game-world is important for you. In that case, think of co-DMing as a situation where each of you play a "name level" PC and a lower level character, and when it's your turn to run things, your high level PC sets up situations the other players' low-level PCs have to deal with. That allows for collaborative story creation without jeopardizing the imagined fidelity of the game world.

But generally, collaborative-narration games work because their design allows for it. Straight-up collaborative D&D where the player is also the DM doesn't work, because it's not designed for that possibility. Or to try to sum up a too-long post, yes, if the game's about killing things and taking their stuff, you don't let the players handle that part. But if it's about something else, they could.

 

[Zoatebix]

I'd prefer to just go with "story games".

I'm still only on page 3, and this quote is from page 2, but I just wanted to say that I almost made the same comment in almost the same format.

Although, Dragonhelm's mention of "products of your imagination" has got me thinking...

Edit: And, of course, Buzz went and greatly expanded upon GreatLemur's post many times over. That's what I get for surfing these forums once every few weeks...