It?s Not Your Story

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
Gantoris13 said:
I've really been enjoying your series. As a rookie DM with my group we recently started playing d&d 4E and started using the pre-packaged adventure arc. These are pretty much nothing but a huge railroad, and in my mind I get a bit disappointed every time the adventure storyline forces me to direct the players somewhere that they didn't necessarily want to go. After reading your article I'm going to start working on a "web" type adventure, from reading my player group I can tell this would be more fun for them. Especially since they all come from a MMOG background and the "web" style is more akin to that anyway.
I've had nothing but terrible luck with Pre-Published adventures for exactly the reasons Alex mentioned in his article. They are FAR too rigid and don't present enough outside fluff/information if your players stray from the path, which they are almost sure to do.

Heck, sometimes they don't even give you enough information to follow the adventure properly without some serious rewriting. Also, encounters against easy enemies in empty hallways for no discernible purpose is BAD ADVENTURE DESIGN, you listening Wizards? Paizo?
 

Kaihlik

New member
Mar 24, 2010
38
0
0
I find it a rediculous analogy, in marital arts each different art has a dojo, in this contest you have the one dojo and everyone else has to go in unprepared. Perhaps if there was a competeing column on the Escapist dealing with the other side the analogy might work but its not really the same thing.

Why is a game that has an overarching story from the start that all participents want to explore and flesh out wrong? If the group wants to explore certain themes and goals in a roleplaying environment why would that be the wrong thing to do? Why do they have to play a game with an emergent story to be right even if none of the group wants to do that?

This is my point, you are really just discussing the generic fantasy roleplay experiance, a game where everyone makes a character, they are thrown into the nearest inn to meet up and discuss their plans and let loose. That is one of the many types of roleplaying game that you can play. If I wanted to play a game where everyone was a member of the FBI and were involved in investigations then your style would be totally irrelivent and practically impossible to achieve.

The web style only really works when players have no real role in society, where they are let loose to do what they want. So basically what your saying is that the only valid type of roleplaying game is one where you are a group of adventurers of some discription that travels around and does what they want.

In the FBI game I am still going to make decisions that effect the character in positive and negative ways, I may still die, I may still fail but it will be a game with a story arc. It will still be a valid experiance, it can still be right.

Its this annoyingly narrow definition of what a roleplaying game is and can be that is informing your articles.

Do you honestly believe that the only type of roleplaying game which is right, is the type where a group of relatively unconnected individuals do what they want to do?

Kaihlik
 

Amazon warrior

New member
Jul 7, 2009
129
0
0
Zannah said:
Amazon warrior said:
Out of curiousity, will you be doing an article on running one-offs too? The most concrete advice I've ever seen on running one-offs was in a DrivethruRPG newsletter. I didn't agree with all of it, but it was an interesting read.
What is a one-off? (I have an Idea what you mean, but given I could be completely wrong, I'll stay safe and ask, before I answer)
Well, my definition is a short and usually quite intense story or scenario played out over (ideally) one or maybe two sessions. For example, many convention RPGs are designed to be one-offs. Of course, I've played one-offs that lasted 12 hours, so it depends a lot on the length of your gaming sessions!
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
Amazon warrior said:
[
Well, my definition is a short and usually quite intense story or scenario played out over (ideally) one or maybe two sessions. For example, many convention RPGs are designed to be one-offs. Of course, I've played one-offs that lasted 12 hours, so it depends a lot on the length of your gaming sessions!
Not exactly what I thought It'd be, but anyway, have to drag my boyfriend to the keyboard for advice, he's the dm in our house;

well, doing short, or one night adventures, what to do really depends on the number of players you have to work with, and wether they play new, or used characters.
If, like me, you have someone close, constantly demanding for adventures, without any other persons present (Zannah, I'm looking at YOU), the low hanging fruit is to work on developing that particular character.
If you have a couple of characters/players, but only an eve's time, just set the scene (like a tavern or whatever) and the players are likely to start something (be it a bar fight or bragging on about how the goverment sucks). Once they do, develope from there on, like you planned it all along (I.e they had their bar fight, the tavern is burning, and the players must now get out of the city, because the guards do not appreciate the fireworks).
If that doesn't work, or the characters/player are all new, and therefore less likely to take the initiative, but desperately need to get an adventure right now, because the party your on is boring - rip off movies. A lot of movies can make excellent adventures, if you set the scene right, and rip the things far enough out of context to not get caught. (Battle Royale to name one, makes an excellent one-night D&D campaign, and if you set the stage right, most people will only catch you if you tell them - In fact I did this one both as an character plot for my own char seeking nerulls favor by arraging a tournament in his honour, and as a ~7 hour adventure for a single, high level fighter, since I stayed at a friends house overnight, and we couldn't get Lan between laptops to work.
To quote mr croshaw - ,,you may call this unprofessional, I call it efficiency".
 

Archon

New member
Nov 12, 2002
916
0
0
Kaihlik said:
Why is a game that has an overarching story from the start that all participents want to explore and flesh out wrong? If the group wants to explore certain themes and goals in a roleplaying environment why would that be the wrong thing to do? Why do they have to play a game with an emergent story to be right even if none of the group wants to do that?
If all the participants want to explore and flesh out the story, it's not wrong. But to my mind that's one of two things. Either (a) it's a game where the players and gamemaster are sharing the world-building and story-telling aspects, a la Ars Magica's "troupe" style play, or (b) it's a game where the story-web that the GM has woven is so compelling that the players CHOOSE to pursue that story, even though they could do otherwise.

What I have railed against is GMs who think it's their JOB to tell a story, and that deviation from this story is wrong. That is very clearly the advice of the DMG2, which recommends you write an ending in advance, and cheat the die rolls to make your pre-determined ending happens the way you want.

This is my point, you are really just discussing the generic fantasy roleplay experiance, a game where everyone makes a character, they are thrown into the nearest inn to meet up and discuss their plans and let loose. That is one of the many types of roleplaying game that you can play. If I wanted to play a game where everyone was a member of the FBI and were involved in investigations then your style would be totally irrelivent and practically impossible to achieve.
No it wouldn't. I've personally done it. My "Chrome Berets" Cyberpunk 2020 campaign set up the players as mercenaries hired by a national government to wage counter-insurgency. Likewise, I just finished a Mutants & Masterminds sandbox with the party as members of a UN-sanctioned hero team.

In the former campaign, my players decided to overthrow the government and set themselves up as dictators. In the latter campaign, my players discovered a villain (Mr Zero) who was a duplicating shapechanger who had killed off world leaders and replaced them with his dopplegangers in order to create a unified world government that could bring order to the globe. The team decided that while his methods were despicable, his was the best available way of preventing a superpowered apocalypse, and joined up with him.

Those weren't my choices, they were the player's choices. That's why I called my column "It's Not Your Story". The GM's job is not to tell HIS story, it's to help the players make their story.

The web style only really works when players have no real role in society, where they are let loose to do what they want. So basically what your saying is that the only valid type of roleplaying game is one where you are a group of adventurers of some discription that travels around and does what they want.
My own personal experience suggests to me that you are wrong.

In the FBI game I am still going to make decisions that effect the character in positive and negative ways, I may still die, I may still fail but it will be a game with a story arc. It will still be a valid experiance, it can still be right.
So long as the players want to follow the story arc, it's fine. But if they decide, "we like our characters, we enjoy this rules set, but we want to betray the FBI and sneak with our money off to Venezuala" and you tell them "no", then I'd say you, as GM, are in the wrong, because you're not respecting player agency.

The risk you take when you write a story arc is the risk that the players won't like your story arc. Then you need to choose what's more important: The player's wishes or your story arc. If you choose the needs of your story over the wishes of your players, that's the point when your desire to be a novelist becomes damaging to your gamemastering.

My advice, therefore, is to avoid putting yourself in this situation by creating a web, rather than an arc, in the first place. Other GMs have said that they solve the dilemma by having the story arc, but then ditching it and improvising if need be. Also a viable approach, but I think pre-planning for flexibility rather than planning rigidly and improvising later is better advice, especially for new GMs who may not be highly skilled at on the fly improvisation.

Its this annoyingly narrow definition of what a roleplaying game is and can be that is informing your articles.
You're imposing your view on me. I hold no such narrow definition.

Do you honestly believe that the only type of roleplaying game which is right, is the type where a group of relatively unconnected individuals do what they want to do?
Again, no, but that's your opinion of my views, not any view I've actually stated.
 

Fearzone

Boyz! Boyz! Boyz!
Dec 3, 2008
1,241
0
0
Kaihlik said:
Do you honestly believe that the only type of roleplaying game which is right, is the type where a group of relatively unconnected individuals do what they want to do?
All I heard him say is games driven by player-agency are more fun than games driven by story, no matter how good the story is. I think he defended his point well.
 

Kollega

New member
Jun 5, 2009
5,161
0
0
Okay, i do not want to sound like a jerk, and i appreciate the Indiane Jones reference, but dude... Godwin's Law.

As for the article itself - if i ever take up GMing, this will probably be the way i do it. The way of having some basic structure to build your improvisation upon is far more appealing to me than a way of "cinematic" adventures. Maybe it's because i see the incredible fluidity and limitless possibilities as one of the strongest sides in tabletop gaming, while it's weakness in visual department dosen't lend itself too well to "cinematic" storytelling. Plus, i see small-time adventuring as a bit more plausible than having epic journeys and showdowns every day.
 

Kaihlik

New member
Mar 24, 2010
38
0
0
Wait just because you have a story arc does not mean that the players cannot leave it. It may just put you on a different story arc but it doesn't make it a web system.

In a web I would have an infrastructure set up which would allow me seamlessly adapt to the situation where they decided to betray the FBI. With an arc I have no such infrastructure in place, I simply reevaluate where the story is now headed and make a new one. Do you define that as a web because if you do its really not clear in your article.

The idea you seem to actually be presenting is not that a story arc position is wrong it is simply that a story arc that is artlessly forced on the players regardless of their decissions is wrong which I agree with.

In my current game my players could decide to side with the enemy and betray the Inquisition. At that point I would likely write a new arc for them dealing with being hunted by their former employers or I may switch to a web format for my campaign. It would be difficult for them but I wouldn't say no.

Here is the problem that I am now having, you seem to be associating a story arc with railroading. My viewpoint is that a story arc is a way to present a scenario to the players, the same with a story web. Railroading can happen in both formats and is bad in almost all cases.

Am I any closer to understanding what you are trying to say?

Kaihlik
 

Archon

New member
Nov 12, 2002
916
0
0
Kaihlik said:
In a web I would have an infrastructure set up which would allow me seamlessly adapt to the situation where they decided to betray the FBI. With an arc I have no such infrastructure in place, I simply reevaluate where the story is now headed and make a new one. Do you define that as a web because if you do its really not clear in your article.
I don't define that as a web, I'd define that as "continuously revised arc" or "arc plus improvisation." I think it can be a good system but I find it very hard for most people to do well. That said, I have known some GMs who are absolutely amazing at improvisation (and conversely lousy at pre-planning), and for them, this approach works.

The idea you seem to actually be presenting is not that a story arc position is wrong it is simply that a story arc that is artlessly forced on the players regardless of their decissions is wrong which I agree with.
Then we're in agreement!

Here is the problem that I am now having, you seem to be associating a story arc with railroading. My viewpoint is that a story arc is a way to present a scenario to the players, the same with a story web. Railroading can happen in both formats and is bad in almost all cases.
Well I am associating them because I think the story arc is the way railroading is most likely to occur. In the many published modules and GM guides I've read, there's a certain "wink wink nudge nudge" advice given to GMs that suggests it's OK to railroad to achieve your story, so long as no one notices.

But I agree; railroading could happen in both formats. Hell, railroading could happen in a purely improvised game, where some GM fudges the dice so that the players always fail at what they are trying, and instead makes something else happens.

Am I any closer to understanding what you are trying to say?
I think we're on or very close to the same page now!
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
You like reading stories Archon? Here ya go.

I choose a mixture of both types of things.. When I DM, I find I'm not very good at directing players to where they might go.. and players are always expecting some direction, so I find it better if I say "We are doing the Tower of Gygax tonight, and I describe it to them, and get them excited to explore it." Then I let them explore it.. Then at the end of the adventure, I leave clues that will lead into the next adventure.

For instance, I once ran a game, where a city was being hounded by kobolds. When going to the kobold village, the players defeated a massive swarm of kobolds including their leader, a Goblin named Muckberry. In Muckberry's possession was a letter in strange cursive writing, with the emblem of a white foot at the bottom. Also, in the Kobold camp, the Kobolds had summoned a small fire elemental and that was another "boss" encounter in the adventure. Before dying, the Fire Elemental cursed the party and told them that some great elemental force was coming, specifically for them, for defeating the fire elemental.

The next adventure involved a small goblin force attacking their safe-zone village. By that time, the players had encountered a lot of interesting denizens of the village, and this goblin attack struck home as several of the NPCs died. While this attack happened, there was a mighty bell tolling at the small wizard tower in the village (basically the place where they sold their excess magical goods, and had items identified).. Elementals had broken free of the safety measures in the tower, and the players were presented with a choice; allow more NPCs to die during the Goblin attack, or help the mages.

They ultimately decided to help the mages and had to fight elementals of every kind, along with levelled down mephits (my favorite RPG monsters). My best elemental was the earth one that was in the top floor. I loved this encounter, because the room was basically a square patch of dirt, and the elemental could move through the dirt, without disturbing it.. it was like a fish moving in and out of the water without actually disturbing the surface.. It's really hard to explain in writing, but it was really effective..

Upon saving the mages, the mages and the PCs went into the village to find a large number of their NPC friends dead, and white foot prints ALL over the place. The mages told the players about a particular mage that had gone missing during the hubbub, and that they should try and find him, because he was the mage tower's elemental warden. The players can't find him immediately, but decide to track down the goblins that had murdered their friends. The find a cave, with a bunch of goblins in it, and a few stray elementals, still cursing the players. At the end of a long winding cave dungeon, the players find the lost elemental warden, and it turns out he was behind the elementals breaking free (Surprise!!).

A battle ensues, and despite the help of more elementals (including a particularly annoying air elemental that would constantly attempt to disrupt spellcasting by "consuming" a character in a torrent of wind), the warden was defeated.. Defeated, out of spells, and injured, the warden tells them of a mighty creature called Thunderfoot that has been rallying an army.. He doesn't say too much before a giant quake shakes the cavern, and a huge stalactite drops on the warden, killing him. The players exit the cave through an opening near where the battle took place (which was covered by an earth elemental during the fight), and encounter a GIGANTIC hill giant, who, upon seeing the players, begins kicking at the cave. The players escape back into the cave as the exit is sealed by debris. They hear the hill giant bellowing "THUNDERFOOT GONNA GET YOU LITTLE ONES!! MWAR HA HWAR!"


As you can see, it's episodic, but also directed. The players want direction. They want to feel like they're doing something, and crafting the story, but they want to be directed as well. My players have always been pretty good about following my cues when I've made them clear enough to the players. An example of where this direction can fail, and lead to emergent story (which, was actually one of my most memorable games, although it was short) is a game a friend of mine ran.

We were marooned on an island with a group of refugees that had escaped from a lizardfolk encampment. We spent several sessions killing lizardfolk, collecting their weapons, trying to marshall the refugees into helping us take down the lizardfolk. The refugees, instead, after refusing to help us out of cowardice, basically implied that they wanted us to rescue them.

So, doing what any good hearted group would do in this situation, we joined the Lizardfolk (and they're Ogre leadeer Ugu, I'll get to more of him in a moment), and utterly destroyed the small village of refugees. Killed every last one of them. One of my favorite D&D moments. Apparently, the DM had been giving us hints about what we should be doing, but we weren't getting the directions, so instead, we just went with our instincts, and killed a bunch of helpless humans.

Another thing I do is cross-campaign continuity. This is where I put elements from one campaign, into a different campaign. Even if they're in completely different settings/worlds.. heck, even different games. For instance, in my games, there is always a family of gnomes that are looking for one another and never finding one another (except very occasionally). This is actually sort of a meta-joke, as the brothers are looking for brothers that have somehow slipped into different campaigns and settings, but it's a bit of flavor that my players seem to enjoy.

I also almost always have an Ogre in the game named Ugu. Ugu was an expriment of mine, when I discovered that in all of my years of gaming, I'd never had a player character die. I had started to think that maybe they were invincible. I'd try and set up difficult encounters, and they'd always survive. You could say my own Agency was being called into question. Is it possible to kill players? The answer, of course, is Ugu.. Err, I mean yes. And of course Ugu as well.

Ugu started off as a Ogre Barbarian lvl3. He used a greataxe in one hand, and used a giant wooden door as a tower shield. And he is a player killer. I first put him up against a group of level 2 players. Their instinct, due to their percieved invulnerability, was to run up and attack him. I did the math, and they could hardly hurt him with a natural 20 roll. Couldn't hit him with a 19. He couldn't miss them with a natural 2, and would kill any one of them in 1 hit. It was a foregone conclusion. And players died.

I love, when my players, take my campaign elements, and bring them into their own games.. Ugu and the Nicklebuckle Family are sort of my children, and seeing them mature and grow further then I took them myself is very satisfying. I loved seeing Ugu in my friends game.
 

Kaihlik

New member
Mar 24, 2010
38
0
0
Ok good to know. My problem has not been with the message of the articles which is usually good solid advice but that they seem to lump several things together that aren't directly related. There may be a causal link between the two factors but the articles often seem to suggest that the link if definitive.

In this case it was the idea of railroading and Story Arcs. While Story Arcs can lead to railroading they don't always do so and that is not presented clearly.

In a previous case the idea presented was that ensuring fun led to a lack of agency. While attempting to ensure everyone is having fun can lead to a loss in agency it depends strongly on the groups definition of fun. In many cases it is perfectly easy to ensure everyone is having fun while keeping agency intact.

I feel that your opinions aren't coming across properly because you attack ideas that you feel oppose your own even when they don't.

In this case I feel that the article would have been better served by attacking misconceptions on how a story arc type game should be played as espoused by the DMG 2 and describing how it should be done in addition to describing how a story web allows for greater agency and a style of play that renforces agency.

Anyway thanks for responding to my posts, I appologise if I have appeared beligerant at any point as that was not my intent.

Kaihlik
 

BlueInkAlchemist

Ridiculously Awesome
Jun 4, 2008
2,231
0
0
Might be something of a shameless plug, but the post [http://www.blueinkalchemy.com/2010/05/12/ribs-without-a-spine/] I wrote regarding this turned out like so:

I've been inspired to write the following due to Alex Macris' latest here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps]. The Cliff's Notes is basically that a GM in a tabletop RPG should be less of a directive storyteller, and more of an emergent one. That's a great concept in theory, but it's possible for some GMs to consider this an excuse to do no story work whatsoever and that, my friends, is a mistake.

Characters with no story to bring them together or drive them forward is like ribs without a spine. Now, as a food, ribs without a spine are mostly what you're looking for. Lather those ribs in a delicious sauce and cook them just right so that the meat's nice and moist rather than tough and dry, and you have yourself a delicacy for a discerning omnivore such as myself. But even in those ideal conditions, the end result's a bit messy.

A less food-based example of what I'm talking about is Mass Effect 2 [http://www.blueinkalchemy.com/2010/03/01/game-review-mass-effect-2/].



For most of the game, you go from one hot spot in the galaxy to another, either picking up a new member of your crew or helping them with a personal matter to earn their undying loyalty (for the most part). This series of mini-stories is bookended with the whole Reapers/Collectors business, but the nature of the game leads one to believe that they're more of a backdrop against which the characters grow, rather than being any sort of impetus for change or tension. If the plot had been more coherent or the threat more credible, we might have had a more full-bodied experience rather than a plate of (albeit tasty) character ribs.

When you have strong characters, the story holding them together should also be strong. However, it shouldn't overwhelm the characters. I think that's what Alex has been driving at in his last few articles. The guy behind the screen, the man behind the curtain, the puppeteer above the stage pulling the strings - it shouldn't be all about them and the story they want to tell to the exclusion of everything else. Role-playing games involving more than one player should be collaborative experiences, with players bringing interesting characters to the table while the GM weaves their plots together and gives them something against which to struggle. That is unless you're running a demo at a convention or something and just want to show off how cool this dungeon is or how that class works in comparison to that other class. Then you go straight for the mechanics and rules, and leave most of your story-telling and world-building and atmosphere-creating tools at home. I learned that one the hard way.

See what I mean here? Are you catching my drift? Or am I completely off my rocker because I told those kids to get off my lawn a bit too violently? Share your thoughts, Intertubes.
 

lokidr

New member
Feb 19, 2010
11
0
0
Kaihlik said:
I just dont see one point of view as incompatable with the other. I can have fun playing both types of game, I see the merits in both, they are different but both have merits and flaws. I am planning on running both, and I am planning on playing in both.

I would rather get insightes on how to achieve your method of GMing rather than hear how it is the right way because to me there is no right way. Yes maybe one way has become too prevelent (although thats a basic premise that I disagree with) and there is a lack of knowledge about how to achieve the style you are advocating but I feel that your articles would be better served by instructing people how to achieve it.

The total dismissal of one type of Roleplaying in favor of another just seems stupid, fair enough point out the cons of that system and the pros of yours but don't be so arrogant as to think that because you like one method the other one is wrong.

That really is whats bugging me, this notion that there is a right and wrong way. Fight for your side but dont do it by dismissing the other side. Yes, one style of game may have become deeply entrenched but that doesn't make it wrong, yes you can rubbish the fact that the DMG2 only espouses one facet of GMing but that doesn't make that facet wrong, it just makes the DMG2 a bad book for not giving a rounded view of things.
You are not alone on this Kaihlik. I see Archon's style as outdated and entirely too focused on lack of story because I have seen it done poorly. I think he's been in one too many games where he feels powerless and doesn't enjoy the ride.

Yahtzee on this site has some very good views on why this is bad, from the point of view of Splinter Cell:
Yahtzee said:
And while there are a lot of linear games I like, they're all beset by this nagging feeling at the back of my mind that the only reason the environment would possibly be designed like this is as an assault course for visiting infiltrators. Enemies wander aimlessly about because they've been told you might be there. Rather than being a place that actually functions normally when you're not around, I strongly suspect that the universe only exists within a fifty foot radius from Sam Fisher's position.
That is what old-school style gives you with it's random tables and lack of direction. I may have control in the world, but it seems so flat and artificial that I don't care. In his forum posts, Archon makes clear he knows this and puts in more motivation if the players want it: the king needs medicine, you've been asked to get it. New game masters will miss that distinction if they follow his advice and end up with sandbox that feels fundamentally empty except for you. That is why they will throw out his advice and go to a directed game on the other extreme.

The next problem with this style is boredom of grinding. Random tables for encounters mean pointless encounters. If I spend 5 hours walking through the woods with nothing more than random encounters, I'm going to lose my motivation to do anything but kill random monsters for loot. At that point, I'll go back to Diablo.

The third problem with this old-school view is players. If I want to go left and you want to go right and there is no real motivation to go either way, why are we still together, why play at the same table? It's a problem with the agency of fun theory Archon has never really answered. A good group, with strong social skills and sense of character motivations will build the story as he states. The problem would be finding a group of gamers with strong social skills and sense of character. I've gamed with hundreds of people and only a narrow few fit that definition. Maybe Archon is blessed with a great group but the rest of us are not.

Mostly, I think this whole "plot Nazi" argument is nothing but beating a straw man. I can point out the random number gods just as easily killing fun. The problem here is an absolutist view on gaming. I just wish more people saw it.
 

Archon

New member
Nov 12, 2002
916
0
0
For what it's worth, lokidr, most of the new game masters who have responded here seemed to have quite readily understood what I've been saying and found the advice helpful. I think there is disagreement, perhaps, but not much misunderstanding.

To answer your specific assertions -
Grinding: I think grinding is a perjorative with no more meaning other than "content the game is making us do that we don't want to do." The beauty of not having a required story arc is that if your party is bored with A, they can do B. If they are tired of traveling in the wilderness, they can stay in town and engage in a war of wits with the local Thief's Guild. I don't think anyone would say my campaigns have much grinding in them.

Lack of Direction: I think I already addressed this with the story web. My answer is to offer multiple directions. So I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Plot Nazi as a Straw Man: Go back and read the comments on these forums and you will see quite a few GMs who have said they do whatever it takes to keep players on their story arc, giving them only an illusion of free will, etc. Whether or not this is YOUR opinion, I don't know, but it's certainly an opinion many people share. So I don't think it's a straw man at all.

Players: Great comment, very fair criticism. I am, in fact, blessed with a great group, but the underlying problem can be severe when player agency leads people in different directions - or is absent entirely on the part of the players. My wife's criticism of my GM style was along these lines, i.e. "your way only works really well if you have engaged players who get along." Thanks for bringing this up; I will be sure to address it in a future column.

***
Altorin - great stories, thanks for sharing!
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
My friends have moved on from D&D, and have moved on to the White Wolf RPGs (the progenitor of this "Storyteller" GM mindset). I find it pretty irritating however, is that it's much more difficult to juggle player motivations in these games, because the games are focused more entirely on the character development and growth rather then cementing together a believable world.

For instance, my character's motivation is to abolish slavery in all of Creation. Another character's motivation is to bring his ancient kingdom back to prosperity. Another character's might be to bring warmth to all of the cold areas of Creation. These may seem like very good things in character creation, but bringing them together and allowing each character to work towards his motivation is a difficult juggling act.

These characters are basically created in a vacuum.. You might ask "Hey, do we have a character very similar to this one I want to make?" so that you don't double up on character concepts, but you don't design the character's in a "party-based" sense. That's one reason why I like D&D. There are roles that need to be filled. You need a tankish character, a roguish character, a magey character, and a healery character. People can pick roles, and positions in the group, and start from there. And the game is basically about working together to accomplish goals that you couldn't otherwise do by yourself.

White Wolf doesn't make characters in the same way. Each character is made largely independant of eachother. That's great from a story-based standpoint, if there are only a few characters, but the game I'm currently in has 6 players and a Storyteller. All but the most vociferous of us fall through the cracks each week, and it's not our ST's fault. It's the game.

I'll still play it though.. if that's what it takes to play RPGs with my friends, I'll try and find my place in this crazy world.. and despite my gripes, it's fun to play.. But I wish they liked D&D, but they refuse to play it.
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
Altorin:

However "Role-Based" Character creation has it's own issues, such as Characters being defined to heavily by their Class/Race Selection and having no personality apart from "I'm an Elven Fighter, which means I like nature and I fight!". Similarly it can lock players into a specific role in combat and gameplay, which can be helpful, but at the same time can mean that your Rogue never does anything but steal and backstab and your fighter just stands there taking and dishing out hits.

Similarly what happens when one player gets forced into a Role they don't want? I've been shoe-horned into being the party Cleric twice now, and what that means for me is that for the most part I have to hang back and be a boring healer while the Fighters, Rogues and Mages get to have all the fun. While some people may enjoy that character, I do not, I like to be an exciting and dynamic front liner, not a hang back spell caster. Similarly DnD, 3.5 especially, is aggressively built so that you MUST have a Trap Finding Rogue, a Damage Soaking Fighter, an Area Attacking Wizard and a Healing Cleric, deviate from that textbook model and you can no longer accurately judge monster difficulty by their Challenge Rating and beware running any kind of prebuilt adventure. Nothing like playing a character you don't really want to play and then being shouted down whenever you try to deviate from the role the rest of the party told you that you have to fill. Similarly most actions you can take to alleviate this, like giving the party more healing potions or a group of fighting henchmen, breaks the Role Based Gameplay anyway, as you no longer need people to fill specific roles.

Independent and Non-Role Based Character Creation allows you to play the kind of character you want without being blocked by the system and can occasionally encourage more dynamic and exciting gameplay.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
PedroSteckecilo said:
I agree, there are issues. I've never really had problem making an interesting character from a pre-defined role. A wiser man then I once intoned that restriction, not freedom, breeds creativity. If you give an artist a paintbrush, every paint color imaginable, and a canvas, he may seem happy, and he might make something good, but if you give him just the color blue and the color red, and you tell him to make a volcano scene.. he has to stretch his creative muscles a bit more and might come up with something a lot more interesting.. that's a really shitty example, I know, but it really does have sound thought behind it. I think of creativity as being like kudzu vines. It flourishes best when it has some structure to hold onto.

I'm not saying the Role-model is the BEST model in all situations.. I'm just saying that in my gaming group at least.. it's been forgotten.. And for that, I blame the proliferation of White Wolf RPGs. They're not bad RPGs, but they aren't really what I want. I play them because my friends play them, and I enjoy spending time with them.

And as for you being shoe-horned into being the cleric twice.. if you were in my group (at least before White Wolf took over and made things like "Clerics" a dirty word), and you truly didn't want to be the cleric, I'm sure we could accomodate you. It's especially easy in 4th edition, with "Cleric" no longer being a role in and of itself. You can be a Cleric, a Warlord, a Bard or a Shaman, and that's just from the core rule books.. Within those races are 2 suggested paths for each, and if you want interesting, just pick a strange race to combo with it, like an Eladrin Shaman, and then try and explain how a noble high elf took on the trappings of a primal shaman.

If you still didn't want to play the healer though, my friends, generally, aren't so selfish that they'd make someone play a character they really didn't want to play in order for THEM to play exactly the character that they want to play. It's about making a compromise. Don't want to be the cleric, or any other "Leader" role (that's what the Healer role is called in 4th)? Ok, I'll make a Leader, I can come up with something, you can take my spot as a Striker, or maybe a Controller.

That's what friends are for :)
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
Altorin said:
And as for you being shoe-horned into being the cleric twice.. if you were in my group (at least before White Wolf took over and made things like "Clerics" a dirty word), and you truly didn't want to be the cleric, I'm sure we could accomodate you. It's especially easy in 4th edition, with "Cleric" no longer being a role in and of itself. You can be a Cleric, a Warlord, a Bard or a Shaman, and that's just from the core rule books.. Within those races are 2 suggested paths for each, and if you want interesting, just pick a strange race to combo with it, like an Eladrin Shaman, and then try and explain how a noble high elf took on the trappings of a primal shaman.

If you still didn't want to play the healer though, my friends, generally, aren't so selfish that they'd make someone play a character they really didn't want to play in order for THEM to play exactly the character that they want to play. It's about making a compromise. Don't want to be the cleric, or any other "Leader" role (that's what the Healer role is called in 4th)? Ok, I'll make a Leader, I can come up with something, you can take my spot as a Striker, or maybe a Controller.

That's what friends are for :)
I agree with you on that, 4th Ed REALLY improves the Role Concept by embracing it rather than kinda side stepping it like they did in 3.5. The fact that there are MANY different classes that fall under each of the roles (2 per Role in the Core Book, more in the expansions) means that it's easier to fill all your roles and play the character you want. Also, 4th Ed Clerics are awesome.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
If you're wondering who the wiser man than I is, I got that general idea from Mark Rosewater (lead designer of Magic the Gathering).. It was one of his main tools when it came to design (game and otherwise) - add carefully placed restrictions, so that participants (be it players, artists, musicians, etc) will have to step outside of their comfort zone, be creative and come up with a solution.

Might have something to do with Agency actually, but I'll let Archon be the decider on that one

PedroSteckecilo said:
*snip*4th edition*snip
What I really find interesting is that there is a role for each power source (Martial, Divine, Arcane, Primal), in the PHB/PHB2 (I count PHB2 as core, because it adds gnomes. can't have D&D without gnomes).

Some of them are pretty dumb, but they're there.

Defender: Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, Warden
Leader: Warlord, Cleric, Bard, Shaman
Striker: Ranger, Rogue, Inquisitor, Sorcerer, Barbarian
Controller: Wizard, Druid... Pretty sure there's a Divine one too.. No Martial one though in the first 2 PHBs.
 

Nejira

New member
Oct 16, 2009
22
0
0
Archon said:
I personally think the gain in agency is worth the loss in "epic directed cinematic conclusion" but that's because I see the epicness of the conclusion as an illusion. Others may see it differently.
In short, I agree completely with that.