Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Nathan Stewart: "Story, Story, Story"; and IS D&D a Tabletop Game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7668293" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Not quite.</p><p></p><p>What Mark CMG is doing is arguing that RPGs in which the GM exercises his/her power of introducing fictional content in response to player signals/cues, are not actually RPGs.</p><p></p><p>Although there is equivocation on the word "control", because Mark CMG does not seem to distinguish between a player making a request to a GM (expressly or by implication) to include something, and the player making a move within the game that generates content in a manner that does not model causal powers enjoyed, in the gameworld, by the player's PC.</p><p></p><p>Suppose, in a classic D&D game, a player says to the GM "I'd like to hire a fighter henchman", and then declares that his/her PC is off to the local tavern. In response to this statement of desire + action declaration, the GM responds "At the tavern, you see what looks like a mercenary who hasn't seen a payday for awhile." The player has his/her PC strike up a conversation, and it turns out that this NPC is a fighter just waiting to be hired as a henchman. (Does the PC in question end up hiring the NPC? That is a further question, which turns on how the table in question handles reaction rolls and social action resolution more broadly. From the little episode of play that I've described we can't tell what the outcome was or might be.)</p><p></p><p>That is how most of the games that Mark CMG labels "storygames" actually work, only the technique is generalised across the whole of play, and particularly to the introduction of antagonistic as well as sympathetic NPCs. And - as the example shows - this sort of stuff has had the <em>potential</em> to be part of D&D since day one, and I believe actually <em>has</em> been part of D&D (and other RPG play) since at least day two: GMs have followed their players' cues in deciding what story elements to introduce into the game. GMs have written up heist scenarios for all-thief parties; written in necromancers to be antagonists of PC paladins; written in targets for PC assassins to spy upon or assassinate; etc.</p><p></p><p>Not every RPG is run in this style, but that doesn't make running a game in this style not an RPG.</p><p></p><p>Most of the RPGs that Mark CMG labels "storygames" fit into your second rather than first category. They were designed as <em>reactions</em> to the sort of railroading (as those designers and RPGers would see it) that is implicit in your first scenario.</p><p></p><p>What distinguishes a so-called "storygame" from (say) Keep on the Borderlands run Gygax-style is that the mechanics of (1) PC build and (2) action declaration and resolution are designed to ensure that the story which is a by-product will be (a) a more-or-less <em>guaranteed</em> by-product, ajnd (b) will exhibit the traits of a story in the literary sense (ie rising action, crisis, satisfaction or thwarting of dramatic need, etc).</p><p></p><p>A very simple example on the PC build side would be to say "Every player, when building his/her PC, must state one loyalty for that PC (be it a person, a place, a thing, etc)". This is what I did at the start of my 4e game. I then introduced story elements into the game which put those loyalties under pressure.</p><p></p><p>A simple example on the action resolution side is - once an action declaration has been permissibly made - to only call for checks when an action declaration is a response to that sort of pressure - otherwise you just say "yes", the PC (and player) gets what s/he wants, and the game moves on fairly quickly until a moment of pressure is reached.</p><p></p><p>The first version of D&D that I'm aware of that incorporated this sort of PC-build element was Oriental Adventures. I'm sure that the designer of OA wasn't the first RPG player or designer to think of it, though! It probably goes back at least to Runequest and the Gloranthan cults.</p><p></p><p>I think the development of the relevant techniques on the action resolution side of things came later in RPG design (Over the Edge, for instance, has the PC-side stuff but not really the action resolution side stuff). Before these sorts of techniques were developed, GM fudging and backstory manipulation tended to be the order of the day, but that tends to undermine the goal of your second approach and push it back to your first approach - which, from the play approach I'm describing here is a collapse back into railroading.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7668293, member: 42582"] Not quite. What Mark CMG is doing is arguing that RPGs in which the GM exercises his/her power of introducing fictional content in response to player signals/cues, are not actually RPGs. Although there is equivocation on the word "control", because Mark CMG does not seem to distinguish between a player making a request to a GM (expressly or by implication) to include something, and the player making a move within the game that generates content in a manner that does not model causal powers enjoyed, in the gameworld, by the player's PC. Suppose, in a classic D&D game, a player says to the GM "I'd like to hire a fighter henchman", and then declares that his/her PC is off to the local tavern. In response to this statement of desire + action declaration, the GM responds "At the tavern, you see what looks like a mercenary who hasn't seen a payday for awhile." The player has his/her PC strike up a conversation, and it turns out that this NPC is a fighter just waiting to be hired as a henchman. (Does the PC in question end up hiring the NPC? That is a further question, which turns on how the table in question handles reaction rolls and social action resolution more broadly. From the little episode of play that I've described we can't tell what the outcome was or might be.) That is how most of the games that Mark CMG labels "storygames" actually work, only the technique is generalised across the whole of play, and particularly to the introduction of antagonistic as well as sympathetic NPCs. And - as the example shows - this sort of stuff has had the [I]potential[/I] to be part of D&D since day one, and I believe actually [I]has[/I] been part of D&D (and other RPG play) since at least day two: GMs have followed their players' cues in deciding what story elements to introduce into the game. GMs have written up heist scenarios for all-thief parties; written in necromancers to be antagonists of PC paladins; written in targets for PC assassins to spy upon or assassinate; etc. Not every RPG is run in this style, but that doesn't make running a game in this style not an RPG. Most of the RPGs that Mark CMG labels "storygames" fit into your second rather than first category. They were designed as [I]reactions[/I] to the sort of railroading (as those designers and RPGers would see it) that is implicit in your first scenario. What distinguishes a so-called "storygame" from (say) Keep on the Borderlands run Gygax-style is that the mechanics of (1) PC build and (2) action declaration and resolution are designed to ensure that the story which is a by-product will be (a) a more-or-less [I]guaranteed[/I] by-product, ajnd (b) will exhibit the traits of a story in the literary sense (ie rising action, crisis, satisfaction or thwarting of dramatic need, etc). A very simple example on the PC build side would be to say "Every player, when building his/her PC, must state one loyalty for that PC (be it a person, a place, a thing, etc)". This is what I did at the start of my 4e game. I then introduced story elements into the game which put those loyalties under pressure. A simple example on the action resolution side is - once an action declaration has been permissibly made - to only call for checks when an action declaration is a response to that sort of pressure - otherwise you just say "yes", the PC (and player) gets what s/he wants, and the game moves on fairly quickly until a moment of pressure is reached. The first version of D&D that I'm aware of that incorporated this sort of PC-build element was Oriental Adventures. I'm sure that the designer of OA wasn't the first RPG player or designer to think of it, though! It probably goes back at least to Runequest and the Gloranthan cults. I think the development of the relevant techniques on the action resolution side of things came later in RPG design (Over the Edge, for instance, has the PC-side stuff but not really the action resolution side stuff). Before these sorts of techniques were developed, GM fudging and backstory manipulation tended to be the order of the day, but that tends to undermine the goal of your second approach and push it back to your first approach - which, from the play approach I'm describing here is a collapse back into railroading. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Nathan Stewart: "Story, Story, Story"; and IS D&D a Tabletop Game?
Top