PDA

View Full Version : Rule system for storytelling DM's



Trolleitor
2017-02-02, 10:34 AM
I was reading about some problems with railroalding storytelling dms and I started to wonder which rule system would be optimal for that kind of play.

I know a DM that is also a novelist and in his campaigns the players are more something like spectators (like Pippin and Merry on LotR) which a very hard time to really change things. Usually when a player try to accomplish something that can really have an impact, he set DC's at nearly impossible numbers, or nearly hopeless battles against overhwhelming npc's.

Don't get him wrong, it seems like his players enjoy his games because he has really impressive skills at telling a story. But this DM is always struggling because he "don't give a **** about the rules", he hates learning a new rule system. This makes him let his players pick the rules and then he tries to ignore this rules, specially if they allow the players narrative control.


This puts group narrative systems, like FATE, outside of the formula.

He wants to narrate, he wants player to listen, he wants the players to answer like the characters they are roleplaying (which the DM probably made anyways).

So why do you guys think? Can you recommend a system fro DM's like this guy?

Edit: If you're curious about examples, this DM several months ago invited me to a campaign for 5 players, he already has a several of characters in mind, and the rule system was star wars saga edition. The characters were a level 3 soldier, a level 9 scoundrel, a level 17 jedi consular (I can't remember the other two). Unfortunately I couldn't join that campaign, a shame, I was so curious to know how the hell that can work.

Thrudd
2017-02-02, 10:53 AM
You want a system that will rein in this behavior, and get the GM to give the players more agency? If the GM will ignore the game rules and just wants to tell a story to some people, then it doesn't matter what system you suggest.
You want a system that has built into the rules the idea that the players are passive observers of a story? I don't think there is one, and there wouldn't be a point. You don't need a system for that: as is evident already, no matter what the game is supposed to be like the GM will ignore the rules and just tell the story.

If you want a change, you need someone else to be the GM. Choose whatever game you like.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-02, 11:03 AM
I recommend Microsoft Word, so he can write stories without pesky players getting in the way.

Trolleitor
2017-02-02, 11:07 AM
You want a system that will rein in this behavior, and get the GM to give the players more agency? If the GM will ignore the game rules and just wants to tell a story to some people, then it doesn't matter what system you suggest.
You want a system that has built into the rules the idea that the players are passive observers of a story? I don't think there is one, and there wouldn't be a point. You don't need a system for that: as is evident already, no matter what the game is supposed to be like the GM will ignore the rules and just tell the story.

If you want a change, you need someone else to be the GM. Choose whatever game you like.

Oh no, I just want to suggest him a system. As I said I'm not one of his players.


I recommend Microsoft Word, so he can write stories without pesky players getting in the way.

Well he's a novelist so... Probably got this covered

Thrudd
2017-02-02, 11:16 AM
Oh no, I just want to suggest him a system. As I said I'm not one of his players.

But what's the point if he doesn't want to learn new rules and won't even follow the rules of whatever game he's running? If he just wants to tell stories, it doesn't matter what system he uses. You can do that without any system at all.

What's the motive for suggesting him a system? Suggesting a different setting for the next story? A system that will not allow him to run the game this way?

Grod_The_Giant
2017-02-02, 11:17 AM
So you need something that's a) Very very simple, and b) gives the players absolutely no agency?

JeenLeen
2017-02-02, 11:20 AM
If you want a game that is rules-light but not like how you describe FATE, I think a d10 system like World of Darkness (new verses old, for rules simplicity), Exalted, or Scion.

The games do have a lot of rules, but he could avoid some of the more complicated sub-systems. The games are built for strongly narrative games, and while there are rewards in-game (at least for Exalted, maybe the others) for cool RP on the player's end, the DM's style shouldn't clash with it, nor should he have to do things like set up absurd DCs for most things.
NOTE: I would not generally consider these rules-light games, but between the various things you wrote, I think they could work well and be relatively easy to learn, particularly if he has someone to explain the basics of d10 success/failure calculations (and, for Exalted, how initiative works.) I am speaking from Exalted 2nd edition; the newer release might be easier.

A potential issue is that these games are fairly setting-specific. You could port them into a class fantasy setting, but it would be hard. Exalted is great for some epic storytelling, though, and has a rich setting.


It's neat and kind of refreshing how this guy sounds like several red flags about a bad DM rolled into one, but the players enjoy the game and this isn't a rant or (at least strong) criticism of his DMing style. Sincerely, cool.

kyoryu
2017-02-02, 11:47 AM
So.... I'd suggest 3.x/Pathfinder.

Sounds weird, right? But in a rules-light game, the whole point is that you're focusing on the decisions that the players make and not the minutae of the mechanics.

If you take away the decisions that the players make, you've gotta replace it with something... and 3.x/PF give the players a level of interesting choices between combat and character builds to keep them engaged.

CharonsHelper
2017-02-02, 11:50 AM
Amber Diceless.

Darth Ultron
2017-02-02, 01:01 PM
Well, any edition of D&D, at least zero to 3.5, plus Pathfinder, is made for this type of play. 1E or 2E are the best, as they have the rules of thing like ''what is written here is just a suggestion, a DM can do what they want'' and ''the DM has the final say on everything''.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-02-02, 01:14 PM
If you want a game that is rules-light but not like how you describe FATE, I think a d10 system like World of Darkness (new verses old, for rules simplicity), Exalted, or Scion.
Uhh... I dunno about WoD or Scion, but Exalted (both 2e and 3e) is one of the crunchiest systems I've ever played, and much more confusing and opaque than, say, 3.5. To say nothing of being one that gives more power to the player characters (not the players themselves, mind) than most, not less.

I'd say maybe something like Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm) would be best; if the DM isn't going to bother with rules or allowing the players to influence things, there's no use proposing a game where rules matter or the players get explicit metagame powers.

Trolleitor
2017-02-02, 01:56 PM
So.... I'd suggest 3.x/Pathfinder.

Sounds weird, right? But in a rules-light game, the whole point is that you're focusing on the decisions that the players make and not the minutae of the mechanics.

If you take away the decisions that the players make, you've gotta replace it with something... and 3.x/PF give the players a level of interesting choices between combat and character builds to keep them engaged.

The problem with traditional d20 3.5 approach is that, because he doesn't like rules that doesn't help him tell story, he's gonna "make up" the challenges.

D20 3.5 systems actually "constricts" players options by making them excel at something, the characters must follow the rules, that constricts what actions those characters can make, but the DM is not constricted by this rules, in any single way.

Combats probably will last until the DM feels like the purpose of the encounter has been achieved.

The DM will then learn the rules by a eye-ball method, he will learn than when the rogue sneak he usually rolls X were X is a massive number because of the skill progression. Then the DM will bend the rules to suit his vision of how this scene should go. But he will always remember what is a "good sneak roll", so the next time a no-rogue character tries to sneak, he will fail because his roll will pale in comparisson of the rogue rolls.

This ultimately makes things harder for players.

Maybe I made things a bit confusing, I'm sorry english is not my native language.

This DM actually tends to use d20 systems, and it usually ends with, lets say, weird fights, weird DC's for challenges, etc.


So you need something that's a) Very very simple, and b) gives the players absolutely no agency?

Oh no no, sorry maybe I didn't were clear enough.
He puts players inside the world of his novels, the story is already written, he actually loves to see players making weird ass decisions that he didn't think off on his stories.

But sometimes, players been players, will make things that really change the story. Then he asks for, usually a very high roll, I guess that's because, he then needs to adjust some writing.

Anyways, back to the point. Probably very simple rules is not what he's looking for. He probably wants somethings that go more along the line of "intuitive", he probably don't want to know nothing about tables or numbers, solid enough to be predictable, so he can gauge the difficulty, open enough to fit new settings, prep light enough to fit on his narrative style of prep.

Trolleitor
2017-02-02, 02:11 PM
If you want a game that is rules-light but not like how you describe FATE, I think a d10 system like World of Darkness (new verses old, for rules simplicity), Exalted, or Scion.

The games do have a lot of rules, but he could avoid some of the more complicated sub-systems. The games are built for strongly narrative games, and while there are rewards in-game (at least for Exalted, maybe the others) for cool RP on the player's end, the DM's style shouldn't clash with it, nor should he have to do things like set up absurd DCs for most things.
NOTE: I would not generally consider these rules-light games, but between the various things you wrote, I think they could work well and be relatively easy to learn, particularly if he has someone to explain the basics of d10 success/failure calculations (and, for Exalted, how initiative works.) I am speaking from Exalted 2nd edition; the newer release might be easier.

A potential issue is that these games are fairly setting-specific. You could port them into a class fantasy setting, but it would be hard. Exalted is great for some epic storytelling, though, and has a rich setting.


It's neat and kind of refreshing how this guy sounds like several red flags about a bad DM rolled into one, but the players enjoy the game and this isn't a rant or (at least strong) criticism of his DMing style. Sincerely, cool.


I think that a light version of WoD system could fit his DMing style with a few adjustments, and as far as I know a high % of players on our city really loves rolling a bunch of dies.

Durzan
2017-02-02, 02:19 PM
Star Wars Fantasy Flight is pretty good. I dunno how easy or how hard it is to GM, but as a player I had a blast during the brief time I was playing a character for the Force & Destiny beta. (GM stopped showing up, and I couldn't contact him, so the game ofc fell apart.)

If you need too, you can always refluff the lore, classes, and races to suit your needs.

kyoryu
2017-02-02, 03:09 PM
Star Wars Fantasy Flight is pretty good. I dunno how easy or how hard it is to GM, but as a player I had a blast during the brief time I was playing a character for the Force & Destiny beta. (GM stopped showing up, and I couldn't contact him, so the game ofc fell apart.)

By forcing GMs to deal with unexpected complications, it seems like it'd go against the storyteller goals of the OP.

Really, the best thing for that would probably be just go freeform, since the GM really just wants an audience for their story anyway.

WbtE
2017-02-02, 03:36 PM
He probably wants a custom ultra-lite system. Given that success and failure don't really matter and it's just about the narrative, play with poker chips:

If the players do something zany or entertaining that the DM likes, he gives them a chip. Maybe they get a chip for finishing each chapter, too.

If the players want to change something that the DM values, he sets a starting cost in chips. Then the players haggle with him. e.g. "OK, we don't have enough to sneak up and stab the dark lord in the back. Could we get a discount if we sneak up and he only notices us at the last moment?"

Lorsa
2017-02-02, 03:49 PM
It would probably help if we knew more what the players want out of playing with this DM. What is the benefit in doing this as an RPG rather than, say, reading his book?

Grod_The_Giant
2017-02-02, 04:03 PM
Oh no no, sorry maybe I didn't were clear enough.
He puts players inside the world of his novels, the story is already written, he actually loves to see players making weird ass decisions that he didn't think off on his stories.

But sometimes, players been players, will make things that really change the story. Then he asks for, usually a very high roll, I guess that's because, he then needs to adjust some writing.

Anyways, back to the point. Probably very simple rules is not what he's looking for. He probably wants somethings that go more along the line of "intuitive", he probably don't want to know nothing about tables or numbers, solid enough to be predictable, so he can gauge the difficulty, open enough to fit new settings, prep light enough to fit on his narrative style of prep.
Oh, okay. That's not as bad as I was afraid of from the original post.


I suggest something like Fudge (the basis of Fate, but without Aspects). The downside is that it's more of a toolbox than a fully developed system, but I'm sure you could find an appropriate version for whatever setting out there. The key feature is that it rates everything on an "adjective ladder"-- you can just say "this is a Great challenge" or "I have a Fair" skill at this, and you can instantly convert that to a number. It also has a nicely consistent dice engine, with a strong bell curve around 0 (meaning if you have a Good skill, you'll probably succeed on a Good task), but it can be awkward to use without their custom dice. (Two +'s, two -'s, and two 0's). Fate adds Aspects, which are sort of key descriptive details in the world or characters that can be Invoked (gain a bonus) or Compelled (must act according to said detail) by exchanging metagame currency, which your DM might like and might despise.
You might also check out Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, or other Powered by the Apocalypse systems-- I personally didn't like my experience with said games, but a lot of people really like them for lighter RPG play.
I'll arrogantly throw in the hat for my homebrew system, STaRS. The basic idea is that it plays very quickly and requires very little mechanical effort on the part of the DM. Everything is 1d10, roll-under-your-stat, with a short little difficulty ladder (auto-fail, disadvantage, normal check, advantage, auto-succeed). No numerical bonuses or penalties, just modifiers that are literally "make this easier" or "make this harder." The DM adds one ad-hoc modifier to any plausible check and that's all they have to worry about in terms of assigning DC. There's a link to the basic rules in my signature.

flond
2017-02-02, 04:05 PM
I'd say probably not Powered by the Apocalypse. It's...very strongly character spindling (by design) and seems to be the explicit opposite of what they want. (Something like Risus is probably fine though)

kyoryu
2017-02-02, 04:45 PM
I'd say probably not Powered by the Apocalypse. It's...very strongly character spindling (by design) and seems to be the explicit opposite of what they want. (Something like Risus is probably fine though)

Yeah, I'd agree. AW, Fate, FFG games... they're all pretty well predicated on fairly high levels of player agency, which will make the kind of stuff the OP wants very difficult.

Risus would probably work well, or even Fudge.

Anonymouswizard
2017-02-02, 05:10 PM
I was reading about some problems with railroalding storytelling dms and I started to wonder which rule system would be optimal for that kind of play.

I know a DM that is also a novelist and in his campaigns the players are more something like spectators (like Pippin and Merry on LotR) which a very hard time to really change things. Usually when a player try to accomplish something that can really have an impact, he set DC's at nearly impossible numbers, or nearly hopeless battles against overhwhelming npc's.

Don't get him wrong, it seems like his players enjoy his games because he has really impressive skills at telling a story. But this DM is always struggling because he "don't give a **** about the rules", he hates learning a new rule system. This makes him let his players pick the rules and then he tries to ignore this rules, specially if they allow the players narrative control.


This puts group narrative systems, like FATE, outside of the formula.

He wants to narrate, he wants player to listen, he wants the players to answer like the characters they are roleplaying (which the DM probably made anyways).

So why do you guys think? Can you recommend a system fro DM's like this guy?

Boy, time to do the 'break down into a list of requirements' trick. So we have:
-Permits/encourages GM railroading, potentially to an extreme extent.
-Rules light or rules intuitive.

The first one is going to be a big problem. Most modern games which encourage GM railroading either have a system for the PCs to give hints as to what they want stories to be about (Aspirations in Chronicles of Darkness spring to mind), or give players tools to influence the story in exchange (Fate, where players can take Compels in order to stock up Fate Points to either make the shot when it counts or ignore inconvenient compels). It sounds like the latter is definitely out (which is a shame), and the former generally assumes players get a lot of input into their characters.

It sounds like his GMing style is the same as the writing style of the oWoD authors, make everything be done by NPCs 20 times the power level of the party, and if the PCs try to avoid the plot punish them (maybe by docking their Humanity for stupid reasons).

So maybe he wants just a really basic homebrew system. It's not like homebrew systems are difficult to create (balance is another story), if I ever needed one I'd come up with say 5 Attributes (say Might, Agility, Resilience, Intellect, and Charm) and then let players pick DIY skills (although generating a list of 10-20 skills can be done in a few minutes), roll 2d6 and add stat+skill. I don't really see the resistance to creating them beyond losing out on the pretty art, one of the best games I played was a playtest of the GM's homebrew system he seeks to publish one day and involved the rules printed out and stapled into three sections ('rules', 'equipment', and 'you don't see the demon stuff').


Edit: If you're curious about examples, this DM several months ago invited me to a campaign for 5 players, he already has a several of characters in mind, and the rule system was star wars saga edition. The characters were a level 3 soldier, a level 9 scoundrel, a level 17 jedi consular (I can't remember the other two). Unfortunately I couldn't join that campaign, a shame, I was so curious to know how the hell that can work.

That's interesting. I wish I knew how problematic such power differences are (because depending on the group it can go from 'not at all' to 'no more bacon in the world').


Uhh... I dunno about WoD or Scion, but Exalted (both 2e and 3e) is one of the crunchiest systems I've ever played, and much more confusing and opaque than, say, 3.5. To say nothing of being one that gives more power to the player characters (not the players themselves, mind) than most, not less.

I'd say maybe something like Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm) would be best; if the DM isn't going to bother with rules or allowing the players to influence things, there's no use proposing a game where rules matter or the players get explicit metagame powers.

I'm not personally very fond of the way WoD and Scion go about, I think there's too many categories for characters (especially oWoD). Attributes, Skills, Gear, Merits/Backgrounds, Powers, Aspirations in CofD, it's just a tad too (much this is a problem I have with many games, I'd rather d6 Space had a contacts skill or attribute rather than making me buy loads of ranks of contacts).

I'm going to second Risus as something he might like.

daniel_ream
2017-02-02, 11:57 PM
If he just wants the players to listen to him tell a story, play The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

Studoku
2017-02-03, 11:02 AM
Suggest he joins a theatre group instead. Then he can have actors instead of players.

exelsisxax
2017-02-03, 03:13 PM
Honestly, it seems like even a cooperative forum-based quest might be too much player agency for this guy.

Has he considered fanfiction.net yet? Because a mere vote seems to be out of line in his game.

tensai_oni
2017-02-03, 04:00 PM
I'd suggest voting with your feet and having the DM stick to fanfiction, like some other people have sardonically suggested already.

But OP is not the DM's player, and it seems the players themselves enjoy this kind of game. Well, if it floats their boat, who am I to disagree?

And to answer OP's questions: I suggest a system that rather than player character agency, prioritizes and rewards roleplaying in a pre-established way. For example Chuubo's Wish-Granting Engine has you pick a personal storyline so to speak and earn points towards its completion. Sadly I don't know exact details as I only know the system second hand, but this is a direction worth looking into.

Alternatively you could try one of those niche systems, the ones that tend to go "players control various emotions that boil in the mind of a young starving artist during his forbidden romance with another man during the Spanish Civil War". Okay, maybe not with this exact premise unless that's what the DM wrote stories about.

Tanarii
2017-02-03, 06:04 PM
I recommend Microsoft Word, so he can write stories without pesky players getting in the way.


So you need something that's a) Very very simple, and b) gives the players absolutely no agency?


Suggest he joins a theatre group instead. Then he can have actors instead of players.Gold! I'm going to trot these out next time a DM or PC player starts talking about RPGs being about collaborative storytelling. :smallbiggrin:


So.... I'd suggest 3.x/Pathfinder.

Sounds weird, right? But in a rules-light game, the whole point is that you're focusing on the decisions that the players make and not the minutae of the mechanics.

If you take away the decisions that the players make, you've gotta replace it with something... and 3.x/PF give the players a level of interesting choices between combat and character builds to keep them engaged.That's an interesting idea. If the DM is willing to allow freedom of action within a combat encounter, and you use a system where it's generally assumed you'll win, or at least one where that's the case if it's run as Combat-as-Sport. He could happily keep his story & plot of rails, but give PCs freedom within each specific combat encounter as they see fit. But that'd require a DM that likes quite a lot of (or at least enough) combat encounters ... and this doesn't particularly sound like that kind of DM to me.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-03, 09:09 PM
I recommend Microsoft Word, so he can write stories without pesky players getting in the way.



So you need something that's a) Very very simple, and b) gives the players absolutely no agency?



It would probably help if we knew more what the players want out of playing with this DM. What is the benefit in doing this as an RPG rather than, say, reading his book?



If he just wants the players to listen to him tell a story, play The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen.



Suggest he joins a theatre group instead. Then he can have actors instead of players.



Honestly, it seems like even a cooperative forum-based quest might be too much player agency for this guy.

Has he considered fanfiction.net yet? Because a mere vote seems to be out of line in his game.



Gold! I'm going to trot these out next time a DM or PC player starts talking about RPGs being about collaborative storytelling. :smallbiggrin:



These replies pretty much have it covered.

What this GM wants isn't an RPG, it's a captive audience.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-02-03, 09:44 PM
We're actually being kind of unfair to the DM, based on later information:

Oh no no, sorry maybe I didn't were clear enough.
He puts players inside the world of his novels, the story is already written, he actually loves to see players making weird ass decisions that he didn't think off on his stories.

But sometimes, players been players, will make things that really change the story. Then he asks for, usually a very high roll, I guess that's because, he then needs to adjust some writing.
"Okay with weird ass decisions, but won't let them derail the general thrust of the plot" is well within the bounds of standard DMing practice, I think. There's nothing wrong with a linear game if everyone's on board with it.

tensai_oni
2017-02-04, 05:24 AM
Gold! I'm going to trot these out next time a DM or PC player starts talking about RPGs being about collaborative storytelling. :smallbiggrin:

What? OP's situation is the exact opposite of collaborative storytelling so I have no idea where you are getting at.

Uncle Pine
2017-02-04, 06:20 AM
I was reading about some problems with railroalding storytelling dms and I started to wonder which rule system would be optimal for that kind of play.

I know a DM that is also a novelist and in his campaigns the players are more something like spectators (like Pippin and Merry on LotR) which a very hard time to really change things. Usually when a player try to accomplish something that can really have an impact, he set DC's at nearly impossible numbers, or nearly hopeless battles against overhwhelming npc's.

Don't get him wrong, it seems like his players enjoy his games because he has really impressive skills at telling a story. But this DM is always struggling because he "don't give a **** about the rules", he hates learning a new rule system. This makes him let his players pick the rules and then he tries to ignore this rules, specially if they allow the players narrative control.


This puts group narrative systems, like FATE, outside of the formula.

He wants to narrate, he wants player to listen, he wants the players to answer like the characters they are roleplaying (which the DM probably made anyways).

So why do you guys think? Can you recommend a system fro DM's like this guy?

Edit: If you're curious about examples, this DM several months ago invited me to a campaign for 5 players, he already has a several of characters in mind, and the rule system was star wars saga edition. The characters were a level 3 soldier, a level 9 scoundrel, a level 17 jedi consular (I can't remember the other two). Unfortunately I couldn't join that campaign, a shame, I was so curious to know how the hell that can work.

This (http://www.homebrew.net/games/2d6QnD.html) homebrew 2d6 gaming system I found today sounds like it'd fit your criteria. The entire rulebook of the game is 691 words, less than two pages.

Anonymouswizard
2017-02-04, 06:50 AM
We're actually being kind of unfair to the DM, based on later information:

"Okay with weird ass decisions, but won't let them derail the general thrust of the plot" is well within the bounds of standard DMing practice, I think. There's nothing wrong with a linear game if everyone's on board with it.

It's an extreme version of standard GM behaviour. To be honest, looking at it, this may or may not be a railroading GM depends on how he does it (I suspect he is from what we've been told, but if the players are fine with railroading then there's nothing wrong).

To be honest, most GMs I've known keep vital elements of the plot out of the reach of players so that they can't mess up the general plot, rather than stopping them from performing actions that'll destroy it. I suspect that if the GM has enough scenes or set pieces planned then they might disallow actions that mess with the general plot too much (especially in the 'need to have the rest of the session right' sense), and might stall certain actions to stop the plot becoming something completely different.

I'm going to suggest FUDGE, potentially with a simple pre-made list of Skills and Attributes to make it easier. It's much lighter than d20 3.P version, and does allow for what sounds like his view on characters (the game assumes everyone's Attributes, Skills, Gifts, and Flaws are all balanced, but they don't have to be), although it does 'require' an investment in special dice (easy to simulate with d6s though, and you could always just buy some blank dice and marker on +s and -s).

GungHo
2017-02-06, 10:30 AM
Sounds like he's trying to write his novel with a minimal level of crowd-sourcing as a choose your own adventure thing to pick out the plot lines he likes. I don't really know what adding a system with dice is doing for him, but you might think of something with pretty simple mechanics like Mind's Eye Theater (WoD LARP) which either uses rock-paper-scissors or playing cards (depending on version).

You might want to ask him for residuals. Hell, if he chooses MET, I want residuals.

Tanarii
2017-02-06, 01:20 PM
What? OP's situation is the exact opposite of collaborative storytelling so I have no idea where you are getting at.IMX, it's exactly what people who talk about collaborative storytelling mean. The only difference is they work together to write the book, instead of the DM forcing it on them against their will.

Both of which are opposed to playing people interacting with a world and making meaningful decisions and having outcomes and consequences.

pwykersotz
2017-02-06, 04:21 PM
This (http://www.homebrew.net/games/2d6QnD.html) homebrew 2d6 gaming system I found today sounds like it'd fit your criteria. The entire rulebook of the game is 691 words, less than two pages.

This is really cool. Good find!

flond
2017-02-06, 04:22 PM
IMX, it's exactly what people who talk about collaborative storytelling mean. The only difference is they work together to write the book, instead of the DM forcing it on them against their will.

Both of which are opposed to playing people interacting with a world and making meaningful decisions and having outcomes and consequences.

Rather like saying "The only difference between onions and apples is apples aren't onions. Neither are oranges!"

Character playing games (monomaniacal focus on immersion and verisimilitude over all) are a subset of rpgs. This doesn't mean that anything that's not a character playing game is exactly alike. :P

(Also, I admit I feel like there's an important question with the actual OP which is "can the characters not affect "the story" (i.e. the plot path their characters are on which determine the course of events in this game) or the story (e.g. "No you can't stop Frodo") It SOUNDS like the first, but it...might be the second.

Tanarii
2017-02-06, 04:24 PM
Character playing games (monomaniacal focus on immersion and verisimilitude over all) are a subset of rpgs.You've mistaken what I'm talking about. I'm talking about roleplaying. ie players making in-character decisions in response to the presented environment/situation.

That is the exact opposite of story-telling, collaborative or otherwise.

flond
2017-02-06, 04:35 PM
You've mistaken what I'm talking about. I'm talking about roleplaying. ie players making in-character decisions in response to the presented environment/situation.

That is the exact opposite of story-telling, collaborative or otherwise.

No, I know exactly what you're talking about. Entirely in-character play attempting to minimize out of character control.

It's just not the whole of roleplaying, and never was. Roleplaying exists in many different forms, up to and including "negotiate the course of events in a plotted list and then play them out."

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-06, 04:39 PM
There's a continuum, and if you get too far off either end, you've left the space that can accurately be called "an RPG".

Tanarii
2017-02-06, 04:44 PM
No, I know exactly what you're talking about. Entirely in-character play attempting to minimize out of character control.You just wrote a bunch of words, but they don't actually make any sense. Every decision a player makes for their character interacting with the presented environment is in-character decision making.


It's just not the whole of roleplaying, and never was. Roleplaying exists in many different forms, up to and including "negotiate the course of events in a plotted list and then play them out."That's not making decisions for their character, ergo it is not roleplaying. Edit: Or at least, I don't think it includes making decisions for their character. I could be misunderstanding what you mean by "negotiate the course of events".

flond
2017-02-06, 04:55 PM
You just wrote a bunch of words, but they don't actually make any sense. Every decision a player makes for their character interacting with the presented environment is in-character decision making.

That's not making decisions for their character, ergo it is not roleplaying. Edit: Or at least, I don't think it includes making decisions for their character. I could be misunderstanding what you mean by "negotiate the course of events".

Sure, but things like "My character was abducted by the duke at a young age and swore revenge" are very much a part of roleplaying games. But also very much not in-character. Doing a little sidebar and deciding you're going to run away instead of attacking because it's more interesting. Totally roleplaying. Even though you made a decision for out of character reasons. Basically I'm arguing you're using a far too narrow definition. And one that generally isn't very helpful given all of the activities, styles and methods historically grouped under "role playing".

Tanarii
2017-02-06, 04:59 PM
Sure, but things like "My character was abducted by the duke at a young age and swore revenge" are very much a part of roleplaying games. But also very much not in-character.That's a contradiction right there. Because that's very much in character.


Doing a little sidebar and deciding you're going to run away instead of attacking because it's more interesting. Totally roleplaying.Also totally in-character.


Even though you made a decision for out of character reasons Basically I'm arguing you're using a far too narrow definition. And one that generally isn't very helpful given all of the activities, styles and methods historically grouped under "role playing".You're using too narrow a definition of "in-character decision making". In character != talky time.

flond
2017-02-06, 05:01 PM
That's a contradiction right there. Because that's very much in character.

Also totally in-character.

You're using too narrow a definition of "in-character decision making". In character != talky time.

Really? So deciding that my character was kidnapped by someone is entirely from an in character perspective? Not the swearing revenge, but the fact that they were kidnapped? Because that's the main part I was talking about. If you're fine with that you should be fine with most of the "storytelling" you complain about.

Tanarii
2017-02-06, 05:02 PM
Really? So deciding that my character was kidnapped by someone is entirely from an in character perspective? Not the swearing revenge, but the fact that they were kidnapped? Because that's the main part I was talking about.Ah. No, that's definitely not in character. I see where you're getting at, it's backstory. Yes, back-story is not roleplaying. It's the part that comes before the actual roleplaying, and only in the case where someone thinks that backstory is a good idea, instead of realizing that's its usually a terrible idea. Much better to create motivations that can be used during the actual roleplaying, or making of in-character decisions.

You're just circling around back to where I'm going to have to reiterate my original point: Roleplaying is the exact opposite of story telling, collaborative or otherwise.

flond
2017-02-06, 05:05 PM
Ah. No, that's definitely not in character. I see where you're getting at, it's backstory. Yes, back-story is not roleplaying. It's the part that comes before the actual roleplaying, and only in the case where someone thinks that backstory is a good idea, instead of realizing that's its usually a terrible idea. Much better to create motivations that can be used during the actual roleplaying, or making of in-character decisions.

See, and I'd argue back story is certainly a part of role playing. The same as it is if you're using a game which lets you declare it retroactively. (I will agree I think backstory is often a bad substitute for the ability to just occasionally adding the bits you need to your character's life as you play. :P )

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-06, 05:11 PM
Backstory is part of establishing who the character is that you're playing, how they're connected to the setting and other characters, etc. It's might not be literal in-the-moment roleplaying, but it's a key tool in the box of things that enable good RP.

However, story going forward and making decisions based on "what makes the best story" instead of "what would this character do in this situation" isn't really, IMO, roleplaying. In fact, to me, it feels like a form of metagaming.

flond
2017-02-06, 05:18 PM
Backstory is part of establishing who the character is that you're playing, how they're connected to the setting and other characters, etc. It's might not be literal in-the-moment roleplaying, but it's a key tool in the box of things that enable good RP.

However, story going forward and making decisions based on "what makes the best story" instead of "what would this character do in this situation" isn't really, IMO, roleplaying. In fact, to me, it feels like a form of metagaming.

And my problem with that is it is at least a fairly large percentage of what roleplaying is. It's not the only perspective, but role playing. Not role playing games but role playing is often gmless, with all involved players fiddling with the rudder and working to make sure everything works well. I'd find it tremendously odd to exclude that sort of roleplaying from the definition. (You're free not to like it mind, but it's certainly under the roleplaying umbrella)

Tanarii
2017-02-06, 05:26 PM
And my problem with that is it is at least a fairly large percentage of what roleplaying is. It's not the only perspective, but role playing. Not role playing games but role playing is often gmless, with all involved players fiddling with the rudder and working to make sure everything works well. I'd find it tremendously odd to exclude that sort of roleplaying from the definition. (You're free not to like it mind, but it's certainly under the roleplaying umbrella)It's a fair point, in that some specific games labeled 'roleplaying' games are designed to be played as storytelling, collaborative or otherwise, as in 'writing' backstory as you go instead of making decisions and having an outcome & consequence. So I suppose technically it counts as under the umbrella. In that regard, okay, you're right, I am defining it too narrowly.

ShaneMRoth
2017-02-22, 02:56 AM
This DM sounds like an excellent candidate for the games published by Pelgrane Press.

The GUMSHOE system might be a good place to start.