Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7413244" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, there was just a&nbsp; round of this discussion where it was then extrapolated by someone into&nbsp; an accusation of 'railroading' the players from one 'action sequence'&nbsp; to the next without remit or pacing, and as if they weren't picking&nbsp; where they went next (at least in part).The other response to&nbsp; this which springs to mind is, &quot;how is it different in practical terms&nbsp; from any other type of play?&quot; I mean, even Gygaxian dungeon crawls, are&nbsp; effectively a 'crisis' by this sort of reckoning. I don't disagree with&nbsp; your employment of the term, its quite correct. It is just a question of&nbsp; if this is really the critical point. In any RPG, 90% of the time&nbsp; there's a conflict in progress. It may be at a lower level where the PCs&nbsp; are crawling around in the 'dungeon', but that's just &quot;man against&nbsp; nature&quot; basically, with hazards, traps, darkness, etc. The PCs 'need for&nbsp; treasure' in classic D&amp;D is pitted against the abstract opposition&nbsp; of the dungeon. Even in later types of play where character and story&nbsp; appear, the characters still have basically &quot;amass power and fortune&quot;&nbsp; opposed to some cast of 'enemies'. My TRUE fundamental&nbsp; proposition, which I only touched on briefly much earlier in the thread,&nbsp; is that story is ALWAYS the point. I find the whole 'GNS theory' (in&nbsp; all its forms) to be bogus because STORY IS ALWAYS EVERYTHING in all&nbsp; games! That is, without some sort of framework of story, the rest of an&nbsp; RPG can do no work! So its natural to ask why it isn't just what the&nbsp; rules focus on.I&nbsp; remember that, back in the days when I asked players for backstory but&nbsp; they weren't given any sort of guarantee of agency over fiction, they&nbsp; were very reluctant to commit to anything concrete. I got a lot of&nbsp; backstories that amounted to &quot;my character is a rootless orphan.&quot; I&nbsp; mean, there'd always be SOMETHING there, but it was quite often very&nbsp; 'slippery' and clearly the player was reluctant to create some sort of&nbsp; 'hook' because they were quite aware that the GM was going to grab onto&nbsp; those hooks and pull! This is even more so true in less story-focused&nbsp; games, as there's correspondingly less possibility of getting some&nbsp; reward, interesting story, out of taking that risk.My point is, story was always a major thrust of things.I&nbsp; think you may not have played much of this type of game if you imagine&nbsp; it that way. I mean, yes, you will put things in doubt. However, THE&nbsp; SAME IS TRUE IN OTHER GAMES, its just that the things in doubt may only&nbsp; matter to the players/characters because the GM wants them to, not&nbsp; because the players want them to. I don't think this is for 'Story Now'&nbsp; reasons, for the most part. I mean, yes, it creates a certain type of&nbsp; very 'immediate' story, with action scenes coming 'in media res' so to&nbsp; speak. This is a technique, a style of game. It isn't an absolute&nbsp; logical necessity of Story Now. I mean, if you are engaged by setting up&nbsp; the construction schedule, recruiting the workers, etc. for the build&nbsp; of your castle, then I don't think there's any reason to expect you will&nbsp; suddenly be framed into some scene where a disaster takes place! You&nbsp; may be framed into scenes which include some sort of key decision point&nbsp; or something which may later (or immediately, whichever) bear on some&nbsp; urgent crisis. Here's the thing. This type of game could VERY&nbsp; WELL actually be more realistic in some cases than simply playing out&nbsp; every little choice. This is because, in general, there are certain&nbsp; choices and options which are critical, and the rest really aren't. Its&nbsp; hard to achieve that in the sort of play you are advocating. In my kind&nbsp; of game though, while building the castle the key points might be if you&nbsp; chose the cheap mortar, if you paid off the Carpenter's Guild or not,&nbsp; whether you got the gnome's permission to mine the quarry, etc. These&nbsp; choices could be framed in terms of conflicts with the character's&nbsp; greed, or his obligations, or his desire to be fair while having&nbsp; marginal amounts of funding, etc. I think BitD is a certain type of game. I am again not at all sure&nbsp; that Story Now prevents one from engaging in up front risk mitigation.&nbsp; It doesn't in HoML. In fact I specifically designed my game to allow&nbsp; planning and thus a more narratively focused type of strategic thinking&nbsp; to be an important element. Now, it isn't like tons of people have&nbsp; played this game, its just something I run myself in my spare time, but&nbsp; it seems to work and it wasn't exactly HARD (I am no genius game&nbsp; designer).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7413244, member: 82106"] OK, there was just a round of this discussion where it was then extrapolated by someone into an accusation of 'railroading' the players from one 'action sequence' to the next without remit or pacing, and as if they weren't picking where they went next (at least in part). The other response to this which springs to mind is, "how is it different in practical terms from any other type of play?" I mean, even Gygaxian dungeon crawls, are effectively a 'crisis' by this sort of reckoning. I don't disagree with your employment of the term, its quite correct. It is just a question of if this is really the critical point. In any RPG, 90% of the time there's a conflict in progress. It may be at a lower level where the PCs are crawling around in the 'dungeon', but that's just "man against nature" basically, with hazards, traps, darkness, etc. The PCs 'need for treasure' in classic D&D is pitted against the abstract opposition of the dungeon. Even in later types of play where character and story appear, the characters still have basically "amass power and fortune" opposed to some cast of 'enemies'. My TRUE fundamental proposition, which I only touched on briefly much earlier in the thread, is that story is ALWAYS the point. I find the whole 'GNS theory' (in all its forms) to be bogus because STORY IS ALWAYS EVERYTHING in all games! That is, without some sort of framework of story, the rest of an RPG can do no work! So its natural to ask why it isn't just what the rules focus on. I remember that, back in the days when I asked players for backstory but they weren't given any sort of guarantee of agency over fiction, they were very reluctant to commit to anything concrete. I got a lot of backstories that amounted to "my character is a rootless orphan." I mean, there'd always be SOMETHING there, but it was quite often very 'slippery' and clearly the player was reluctant to create some sort of 'hook' because they were quite aware that the GM was going to grab onto those hooks and pull! This is even more so true in less story-focused games, as there's correspondingly less possibility of getting some reward, interesting story, out of taking that risk. My point is, story was always a major thrust of things. I think you may not have played much of this type of game if you imagine it that way. I mean, yes, you will put things in doubt. However, THE SAME IS TRUE IN OTHER GAMES, its just that the things in doubt may only matter to the players/characters because the GM wants them to, not because the players want them to. I don't think this is for 'Story Now' reasons, for the most part. I mean, yes, it creates a certain type of very 'immediate' story, with action scenes coming 'in media res' so to speak. This is a technique, a style of game. It isn't an absolute logical necessity of Story Now. I mean, if you are engaged by setting up the construction schedule, recruiting the workers, etc. for the build of your castle, then I don't think there's any reason to expect you will suddenly be framed into some scene where a disaster takes place! You may be framed into scenes which include some sort of key decision point or something which may later (or immediately, whichever) bear on some urgent crisis. Here's the thing. This type of game could VERY WELL actually be more realistic in some cases than simply playing out every little choice. This is because, in general, there are certain choices and options which are critical, and the rest really aren't. Its hard to achieve that in the sort of play you are advocating. In my kind of game though, while building the castle the key points might be if you chose the cheap mortar, if you paid off the Carpenter's Guild or not, whether you got the gnome's permission to mine the quarry, etc. These choices could be framed in terms of conflicts with the character's greed, or his obligations, or his desire to be fair while having marginal amounts of funding, etc. I think BitD is a certain type of game. I am again not at all sure that Story Now prevents one from engaging in up front risk mitigation. It doesn't in HoML. In fact I specifically designed my game to allow planning and thus a more narratively focused type of strategic thinking to be an important element. Now, it isn't like tons of people have played this game, its just something I run myself in my spare time, but it seems to work and it wasn't exactly HARD (I am no genius game designer). [/QUOTE]

Verification