Role-Playing Philosophy (Mine & Others)

[Cluedrew]

Philosophy, like role-playing, is something that can be hard to pin down. Here I just mean something that underlies something else, just deep enough that it cannot be seen directly. I was actually thinking about this because I wanted to write some tips on how to run the system I am working on. Which means I was thinking about how I intended it to be run which is closely linked with how I like games to be run and then I ended up here. How I like games to be run in high level terms.

Then I took a step back and wondered if there was much point in posting this. Considering how many arguments seem to boil down to people hitting each other over the head with opinions like they are absolute fact (which actually happens less often than it could, but still does) I think going back and talking about the base that gives rise to all these opinions might help with that. So if you want to talk about why you are role-playing and how you approach it, let's do so here. If after butting heads with me you want some insight into my madness, here is my role-playing philosophy:

Dynamic Collaborative Storytelling. Yeah I know some people have issues with collaborative storytelling as a definition of role-playing. They might be happy to know I actually consider them to be different things, although both are found in role-playing games. More to the point, I do play role-playing games to tell a story and to have it told to me. The game is that we are telling the story within constraints, not the least of which is that is working with what the other players have done any laid out. The actual rules are almost a means of organizing and communicating that. I added the dynamic to highlight that no-one knowing where this is going is an important part of it. Advancing down a path laid out ahead of time just isn't the same for me.

That is the metaphoric heart of it all. From there the next biggest things start to fall out. I don't care for tactical combat rules, even though I am a war gamer at other times it is not why am here. Really anything that isn't going to come back to the story isn't really worth the time in my opinion. Of course exactly where that line is can be hard to pin down, there may be some things clearly on one side or the other but a lot of things can be situational.

The story should be very much about these particular characters (the PC characters) because if it isn't, if their decisions aren't changing the flow of the story, it stops being collaborative. I would say something about the other side, but I have a hard time seeing the player with control over 99% of existence having trouble in that regard. I don't really hold the world vs. PC line firmly. People effect other people all the time, I see no reason why that should stop once the game starts. And I like the other direction, bringing in rules about how the PCs can effect the world in more complex ways than stabbing things until they stop moving. Which is to say the social influences and other ripples they can have.

I think those are the base points. There are other little ones like the best type of surprise is one that in hindsight really shouldn't of been a surprise. Rules should only appear when they are useful. Things like that. But right now I think that is the core, most of my particular opinions come from some part of what I laid out there.

Feel free to share yours or comment on mine. I don't think I can be wrong per se, but I could have described it badly.

[Tanarii]

As one of the biggest anti-collaborative-storytelling-as-a-phrase posters on these boards, while I don't personally like storytelling as a goal in RPGs, I think it's possible for:
- the GM to use storytelling structures in designing their adventures without it making them bad
- the player to enjoy the storytelling structures in their adventures
- the GM and player to enjoy seeing where the story of the characters goes. I'm not a fan of that phrasing, but I understand what seems to be generally meant.
- to run a game in which many traditional GM "story" elements are actually under player control.

Personally, I'm in roleplaying games for several reasons:
- determine what my character tries to do, but not the outcomes or consequences or how the fantasy environment works.
- to overcome challenges.
- to explore a fantasy environment.
- to try to play a personality that's not quite the same as my own (in specific ways).
- to be able to do super-hero stuff, limited wish fulfillment in a beer & pretzels way.

As a GM, I enjoy seeing the players being happy with these things, because I know they would make me happy.

Unless I'm playing a game that's intended to be run that way, I do not enjoy players that try to determine outcomes or consequences or what the fantasy environment does directly, as opposed to communicating intentions.

Players that won't be able to enjoy my games are those that get upset when their desire for narrative pacing & structures aren't met. I prefer to run a world that seems to exist independent of the PCs, even though that's a never actually the case. Not one in which the PCs are the participants or protagonists in a story. That said, I totally get the appeal to a GM to build around narrative pacing, it's a pretty solid way of structuring pacing in a way that will keep players engaged.

Generally speaking Players that will enjoy my games will include those who want to try and rise to the challenge of the world, that enjoy exploring their character and the world, enjoy interacting with the NPCs and other Pcs and the fantasy environment as if it's a real world, and want to see what happens with it all. And are active in making stuff happen in the fantasy environment. (Right now I've a long running campaign that's more focused on exploring & overcoming challenges in dungeons & wilderness adventuring sites. So the character and world development engagement aspects are low.)

[Darth Ultron]

As another of the biggest anti-collaborative-storytelling-as-a-phrase posters on these boards, it's not my Philosophy.

First off, I find very few players even care about ''storytelling'': they just want to ''play'' the game. At best they might have a vague story idea for their single character...but they don't care about the whole game.

Second, unless the game has rules that makes everyone a ''CO-DM'' or otherwise of all equals, you can't have ''collaborative storytelling''. I don't get how everyone thinks a game where the DM controls 99% of everything, and a player controls the 1% that is their individual character is ''collaborative'' at all. The DM controls all time and space and reality...and the player has their character take a five foot step to attack a goblin...and that is ''collaborative''. Even when the ''once a year'' type thing happens where a player has a character kill the Emperor of the world...the DM still has full control of everything happening.

Third, to have a story to tell...storytelling....there has to be a plan and forethought and preparation. You know, otherwise is the Random Mess. I find very few players want to know the plans. It makes ''playing'' the game for most pointless. The players have to be clueless, as clueless as their characters, to have fun.

[Cluedrew]

I think I should clarify that the (Mine & Others) bit was supposed to mean you can put yours here, not that this is supposed to apply to other people. I'm sure there is at least one other person in the world that would have a philosophy that matches what I said, but that is just by shear weight of numbers, I don't know who this person is. Also I do enjoy things like discovery and challenge, but to me they are not as central as the storytelling part.


Unless I'm playing a game that's intended to be run that way, I do not enjoy players that try to determine outcomes or consequences or what the fantasy environment does directly, as opposed to communicating intentions.I've never actually seen a system that just let people decide the results of a character action. Unless it was so simple its now worth rolling dice for. I've seen rules that let the player choose how the character loses control when pressured (from a list of options), I like that one because the player usual knows the character better. In short I'm not sure exactly what your talking about, but I'm don't think it is what I'm talking about.

In the system I am working on I do have rules for shaping the environment, but it is more like "So I see you have a contact on your character sheet, who is it?" than the players deciding what the map looks like.


I prefer to run a world that seems to exist independent of the PCs, even though that's a never actually the case. Not one in which the PCs are the participants or protagonists in a story.Also agree, I think the world should feel to be moving on its own pace off screen, even if you rarely see it. But that to me is just good storytelling, making the setting feel real. I guess what I'm saying is... As an extreme example you could have a story with a GMPC-overpowered-self-insert (with katana) type character in a story, although if you actually do the next part probably won't go right, but the story shouldn't be what that character does. It should be about what the PCs do dodging around that person, currying favour or undermining their power. Or both. The focus of the story and the focus of the world don't have to match.


Second, unless the game has rules that makes everyone a ''CO-DM'' or otherwise of all equals, you can't have ''collaborative storytelling''.Well by "equals" do you mean all the same or all significant? Because the former does not hold in my games, the latter does. There is a very real distinction between those who shape the story via the main characters in it and those two shape the story via the secondary characters and background elements, but they both shape the story.

[Tanarii]

I think I should clarify that the (Mine & Others) bit was supposed to mean you can put yours here, not that this is supposed to apply to other people.That was clear to me. That's why I rambled about me. :smallamused:


In the system I am working on I do have rules for shaping the environment, but it is more like "So I see you have a contact on your character sheet, who is it?" than the players deciding what the map looks like.Thats one kind of shaping the story / environment I'm talking about. But I was thinking of on the fly stuff like a player declaring someone you just met is your long lost childhood friend. As opposed to working it out together. There are many systems that allow that kind of thing. I'm okay with them if they're mechanically integrated into the system or everyone is in agreement because the system recommends them.

But on a declaring a specific action level result, I'm thinking more of players that declare they're suddenly attacking someone, and expect that declaration to result in a first strike.


Also agree, I think the world should feel to be moving on its own pace off screen, even if you rarely see it. But that to me is just good storytelling, making the setting feel real. I guess what I'm saying is... As an extreme example you could have a story with a GMPC-overpowered-self-insert (with katana) type character in a story, although if you actually do the next part probably won't go right, but the story shouldn't be what that character does. It should be about what the PCs do dodging around that person, currying favour or undermining their power. Or both. The focus of the story and the focus of the world don't have to match.QAnd this is where I start to lose track of exactly what exactly is being meant by "story", because it seems to applied so broadly and generally ... :smallwink:

Keep in mind my favorite definition of "roleplaying" is "making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment", so I'm no stranger to using big-tent broad definitions myself. But that's why in my first post I specifically talked about story structural elements, as opposed to a more generic "story".

Really, given how important you feel story is, you probably need to clearly explain what "story" means to you. I won't argue definitions, I promise. :smallbiggrin: I'm genuinely interested because it's not clear to me what you're meaning when you use the term.

[Darth Ultron]

I've seen rules that let the player choose how the character loses control when pressured (from a list of options), I like that one because the player usual knows the character better.

I really dislike this sort of rule. It is bad enough to say ''every time the character sees red they have a 5% chance of going crazy off of list A1''. It's worse when ''going crazy'' is only one of a couple things on a list. I would much rather keep all this stuff under role playing.



In the system I am working on I do have rules for shaping the environment, but it is more like "So I see you have a contact on your character sheet, who is it?" than the players deciding what the map looks like.

This is a good example of what I was talking about above: most players can't do this, and even if they could: they don't want too. It is rare that a player wants to do this sort of side table DMing. Sure there are the extremely rare players that want to side table DM and do the odd ''run the whole game like another DM...but still ''pretend'' to be a player". Sadly, most who like such options, just want to use them as an exploit and ''add'' stuff to the contact that is favorable to their character.

Most players might have a brief, ''cool'', bit to add about a contact....but they don't really want to make the contact in full.



Also agree, I think the world should feel to be moving on its own pace off screen, even if you rarely see it. But that to me is just good storytelling, making the setting feel real.

By this you mean the DM making the setting feel more real to the players?



Well by "equals" do you mean all the same or all significant? Because the former does not hold in my games, the latter does. There is a very real distinction between those who shape the story via the main characters in it and those two shape the story via the secondary characters and background elements, but they both shape the story.

No reason every thing can be significant, but not even close to equal.

Except the distinction does not hold in a game. It is still : players shape 1% of the local area of their character; DM shapes all time, space and reality of 99% of the whole game.

[Tanarii]

Just to be clear, I'm fine with systems where you mechanically buy an empty "contact" slot with some character build points, and buying them explicitly allows you to declare a contact on the fly. Or ones with some kind of plot points that allow you to do much more general things on the fly. Those systems build that kind of stuff into the system.

But it's not what I generally want out of roleplaying games, either as a player or a GM.

Similarly, as a general rule, I'm not a fan of being told as a player, or telling a player as a DM, what a character feels or intends to do, absent some kind of mind control or magical domination. Even rules like Horror Factor or Insanity Points or Forced Alignment Change aren't my cup of tea, although they can make for fun experiences if everyone is buying in and they aren't a constant thing.

For similar reasons in both cases. Generally speaking, I'm most comfortable with the player controls PC intents, and the GM adjudicates resolution of PC intents, and controls the world.

[Cluedrew]

To Darth Ultron: Replying to your points:
Your experience with players is very different from mine.
Your experience with players is very different from mine.
Sounds right.
Well a significant contribution is all you need for collaborative. Plus with the focus that 1% gets, I don't think the ratio is nearly that drastic.

To Tanarii: Once again I think you are overestimating how much I have changed the line. The social rules in particular don't go nearly as far as anyone who has been subjected to the failure that is D&D "non-magic mind control". But unless you are really curious that is close enough. I might do better with the things you mention. Except the forced alignment change, I will agree prescriptive alignment is a bad idea.

[RazorChain]

This is a good example of what I was talking about above: most players can't do this, and even if they could: they don't want too. It is rare that a player wants to do this sort of side table DMing. Sure there are the extremely rare players that want to side table DM and do the odd ''run the whole game like another DM...but still ''pretend'' to be a player". Sadly, most who like such options, just want to use them as an exploit and ''add'' stuff to the contact that is favorable to their character.

Most players might have a brief, ''cool'', bit to add about a contact....but they don't really want to make the contact in full.



By this you mean the DM making the setting feel more real to the players?
.

Darthy boy, arranging your potted plants around a table and putting character sheets in front of them does not count as players for the rest of us. Now go find yourself some real players.

[Tanarii]

To Tanarii: Once again I think you are overestimating how much I have changed the line. The social rules in particular don't go nearly as far as anyone who has been subjected to the failure that is D&D "non-magic mind control". But unless you are really curious that is close enough. I might do better with the things you mention. Except the forced alignment change, I will agree prescriptive alignment is a bad idea.Okay. My intent wasn't so much to give direct feedback on your social rules, so much as to give you my view on things, along with an explanation of why. I fall into very specific engagement types as a player and as a DM, and what you're talking about is ultimately player/DM engagement. So I figured it'd be useful to give you an alternative example. Especially given your OP seemed to be inviting it.

Personally I think Angry DM did a fair job of describing different engagement types. Although I'm generally a fan of his so that biases me.
http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/
I took what you're talking about to be a combination of narrative and expressive engagements.

[Cluedrew]

Okay. My intent wasn't so much to give direct feedback on your social rules, so much as to give you my view on things, along with an explanation of why. [...] Especially given your OP seemed to be inviting it.Oh it definitely is, and I think I understand your explanation as to why. I'm just trying to be clear about were I stand because that is the other purpose of this thread.


I took what you're talking about to be a combination of narrative and expressive engagements.Probably, with some fantasy for a living story world and discovery because the unpredictability of it is such a big part.

[oxybe]

I'll toss in my 2cp.

Stories should be told, not experienced.

You don't normally set out on any venture for the sole purpose of "Boy am I going to have a good story to tell", largely because real life loves throwing a spanner in the cogs. You might hope you have a good story when you get home, but forcing the story, to me, feels very artificial.

The best gaming stories, to me, aren't the planned ones. It's the weird anecdotes you tell around the table, stuff that just happened because of play.

To use an example: years ago I was running what was dubbed "the monster campaign". It was, at it's core, about a group of misfit monsters trying and barely succeeding to blend into the fringes of society at large. The party at the time was a half-ogre sorceror, a young medusa rogue, a pixie who i forgot the class and an aasimar cleric.

Those four have stories to tell:

Like how the medusa was the only one to wake up during a midnight ambush, barely turn around in her bedroll to gaze at her would-be assailant and petrify him, then just go back to sleep... leaving the rest of the party bewildered at the hunched over statue in the morning (including the medusa who realized it wasn't just a dream).

Or how the half-ogre, while invisible, was at the front of the party and after opening a door, the (also invisible) ogre mage behind it tried to bull rush the frail-looking medusa... only to ram head-first into our invisible half-ogre and fall backwards arse over teakettle because that half-ogre was not moving. Confused and barely registering what happened as his invisibility wore off, he didn't see the half-ogre's maul coming towards his face until it's invisibility wore off.

Or that time the pixie, while invisible, was following the captured medusa (her petrify was a 1/day thing at the time i believe, so she couldn't just statue everyone). She was being restrained by two rather burly guards as their boss was trying to figure out what he's going to do with this new capture. Now the boss was aware of the pixie but not the mooks, so when the pixie dashed to stab the boss with his amnesia arrows, only one person was able to respond to it... and failed to dodge it and the save to lose all memories. So when the charismatic medusa realized what happened, she begged the confused amnesiac to help her as the bad men captured her (and yes, they still had her restrained). Poor mooks never stood a chance. So the party, with the confused enemy leader in tow and causing as big a ruckus as they could, exited the encampment with their prize (a magic crown they were sent to retrieve) at as quick a pace as they could.

Or how, under the veil of illusion spells, the party had sneaked and captured the leader of a rogue merc company under cover of night. Gathering everyone in the courtyard and in formation, they presented one of the mercs a medal... a strange pendant with a few red beads on it. taking a few steps back and out of the explosion radius, the half-ogre sorceror then cast fireball. And every bead on that necklace of fireball exploded in a glorious blast that left a rather nice crater in the ground and charred gibs and stray straps of armour all over the courtyard... mercs dead and base captured.

These are the stories that are made through play, the stuff that is talked about years after the fact. Sometimes you get those stories, sometimes you don't, but I very much believe you can't manufacture them.

That's my philosophy. Play the game and if there is a story to tell, it'll happen naturally and be that much more meaningful for everyone at the table.