PDA

View Full Version : Aesthetics of play (or individual preferences) and different GM techniques



Lorsa
2019-05-28, 10:28 AM
After having read through (but not have time to reply to) the "Nature of Railroading" thread, one thought occurred to me.

We all want different things.

Not really a main source of contention and quite obvious to many people. However, how does those different things map to different types of GMing? And is the long debate over how useful railroading is really a matter of people delivering different sorts of aesthetics to the game?

Now, I doubt I'll get even remotely the same length of discussion as the above mentioned topic, but hopefully there'll be enough replies to help me develop the thought.

One concept to be aware of, which I am referencing here, is the eight aesthetics of play given by the MDA framework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDA_framework

While you may disagree in the completeness of this list, and how forming categories is always problematic, let's use it for the sake of this discussion. To my knowledge, it's the best description of how we all want different things, and what those things actually may be.¨

So how does this connect to GMing techniques and the discussion about railroading?

Well, different GMs might focus on and deliver different types of aesthetics (damn that word is hard to spell). It could be because they themselves like a particular AS (from now on short for aesthetic), that their skill set is one that focuses on one or because the players they have had in the past have had a clear AS preference.

For example, in the railroading discussion, Max_killjoy mentions "immersion" a lot, which I believe falls under the "Fantasy" AS. This is one thing I enjoy myself, and always try to be a main AS when I GM. For this, railroading is problematic as it can easily make the world seem less "real" (read believable).

Similarly, for players looking for Challenge, railroading isn't good either, as it diminishes the players' skill at solving a problem (the GM already solved it for you).

However, for those players looking for Narrative as their main AS, railroading may actually not be as bad. This I believe is the argument that AMFV tried to make in the railroading thread. Most likely, his players like this AS and thus enjoy his GMing style.

According to The Angry GM, players looking for Narrative as main AS are actually kind of rare in the RPG community. And let's face it, while every game played creates a "story" of the sense that it looking at it in retrospect it has a sequence of events. However, most of the games create very crappy stories in the narrative sense. They wouldn't cut it for a novel or movie. If you are looking for that kind of narrative, with clear story pacing, plot points, reveals, twists, climaxes and whatnot, most roleplaying games played are not for you. To really generate this, some kind of railroading would be needed (or so I speculate).

Similarly, for people whose main AS is Submission or Fellowship, linear games and light railroading might be just the thing to give them what they're looking for. Maybe they'd even like to be railroaded in a way they're not aware of (a.k.a. illusionism), and not really having the desire to peek behind the curtain.

If you're looking for Discovery, you need a real sandbox, where there are actual things to discover and may dislike the GM improvising too much (as it gives you the sensation that the things just popped up in your path regardless of where you go). And people looking for Expression would most likely hate railroading as it limits their freedom. Generally speaking, Expression people tend to become GMs themselves.

Anyway, that's the introductory point. What do you think about the different aesthetics of play and GMing techniques? How detrimental is railroading to them? What is your preferred aesthetic? And what do you usually bring when GMing?

Beleriphon
2019-05-28, 10:42 AM
I've liked the eight aesthetics of gameplay from a design perspective. What are you doing, and why? Less helpful from an in the moment decision, but as an overall view of what I as GM want, and what the players want its super helpful.

In fact I think the most important take away from MDA theory is that as players we experience aesthetics first, but the designers of a game can only really give us the mechanics. They can't directly give us an aesthetic appeal, at best they can structure the mechanics to give the aesthetics they think we the players should experience.

Extrapolate that to game in general, if you don't think Game X is doing what you want, then maybe its not actually the game you should play. Try Game Y instead.

For example, playing FFVI and expecting an expression driven fantasy/exploration game probably not going to happen, if you want that maybe try Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Want a pure fantasy/exploration game, not worried about expression or narrative? GTA V probably a good choice. Game as narrative, lets get back to FFVI.

kyoryu
2019-05-28, 12:03 PM
So I want a game that’s a story, but one in which the results of the story are based on the actions I take.

I’m interested in some level of challenge, but at the “how do we resolve the scenario” level, not so much the “how do we defeat the monster” level and almost none at the “how do I optimize this character” level.

There’s definitely some “fantasy” in there.

I’m not sure how that qualifies. More interestingly, I think there are people whose gaming I would not be compatible with that would come up with similar rankings.

Quertus
2019-05-28, 12:48 PM
Well, my primary interest is… Discovery, I suppose (Angry dubbed it "exploration", IIRC).

Thing is, I don't care so much about "exploring the map" as exploring a concept. So, *here*, *these* rocks float. OK, why? Why just these rocks, why just here? Can we replicate this? Utilize this?

I don't want the GM to have already developed the "floating rock school of martial arts" - the one and only possible use for floating rocks in the campaign world ever. :smallyuk:

No, I'm interested in what we the players invent given this tool.

But that's wrong.

I don't want to be handed just one tool - I want to be handed dozens. Hundreds. An orcish invasion. A lonely Driad. Dungeon mummies who "just came in to get out of the rain". A kidnapped princess. An evil king and his noble vizier. Cabbage migrations. The elemental plane of taffy. Phoenix extinction. A new technique for ascension. Floating rocks. A Wizard war. An underwater portal to the elemental plane of taffy, with invisible, incorporeal guardians. Troll bridges viewed favorably. Sentient bats. Dragonfire legions. The library in the mirror realm. The source of freckles. Suicidal immortals. A beaten dog. An artifact ice cream truck. Contagious visions. A lake of gilding. Mass enslavement of Kaorti for their weapons. Pumpkin-headed zombies spontaneously appearing.

I want a world full of color and wonder, where we can write our own stories.

If the GM has already written the story, that defeats the point. They can go read that to their kids. Just give us the tools to write our own, and be the fair arbiter of our success or failure (or of our successes and failures).

So, for me, at least, which side of the railroading line I stand on is predictable from my primary aesthetic.


More interestingly, I think there are people whose gaming I would not be compatible with that would come up with similar rankings.

So, crazy question - how have dating apps dealt with this issue? Any other fields we should look towards for wisdom?

ErdrickOfAliaha
2019-05-28, 04:15 PM
First off, I would love to play in Quertus' world. On topic though, I play in a group with rotating GMs, many of whom take a turn to "tell their story". In general I enjoy these games, even when they're very linear, because my choices still matter, even though the options are limited. I have been on a railroad of a game and don't enjoy that, which I'm stating because I recognize the difference.

Personally, I lean closer to the sandbox on the GM spectrum. I think the proper lens for this discussion isn't just what aesthetic You enjoy, but also those of your table. Mine skews Fantasy, be it historical, modern, or blended into sci fi futuristic.

Kol Korran
2019-05-28, 04:29 PM
Well, my primary interest is… Discovery, I suppose (Angry dubbed it "exploration", IIRC).

Thing is, I don't care so much about "exploring the map" as exploring a concept. So, *here*, *these* rocks float. OK, why? Why just these rocks, why just here? Can we replicate this? Utilize this?

I don't want the GM to have already developed the "floating rock school of martial arts" - the one and only possible use for floating rocks in the campaign world ever. :smallyuk:

No, I'm interested in what we the players invent given this tool.

But that's wrong.

I don't want to be handed just one tool - I want to be handed dozens. Hundreds. An orcish invasion. A lonely Driad. Dungeon mummies who "just came in to get out of the rain". A kidnapped princess. An evil king and his noble vizier. Cabbage migrations. The elemental plane of taffy. Phoenix extinction. A new technique for ascension. Floating rocks. A Wizard war. An underwater portal to the elemental plane of taffy, with invisible, incorporeal guardians. Troll bridges viewed favorably. Sentient bats. Dragonfire legions. The library in the mirror realm. The source of freckles. Suicidal immortals. A beaten dog. An artifact ice cream truck. Contagious visions. A lake of gilding. Mass enslavement of Kaorti for their weapons. Pumpkin-headed zombies spontaneously appearing.

I want a world full of color and wonder, where we can write our own stories.

If the GM has already written the story, that defeats the point. They can go read that to their kids. Just give us the tools to write our own, and be the fair arbiter of our success or failure (or of our successes and failures).

My response isn't meant as criticism. It's intended as an outside look, to hopefully help define your aesthetics....

To me, what you describe doesn't look like "Discovery", but "Expression". Discovery aesthetics focuses on the search and the moment of finding somehing hidden, while Expression is about utilizing something in the world (Your own character or something else) in new ways, and let them affect the world. To make an impression of your choices/ deeds/ self on the world.

If I'm using the example of the flying rocks, an Expression seeker would be thrilled by the search and ultimate find of the rocks. Utilizing them won't be as exciting for them... Finding them, and possibly secrets behind them maybe, but for the sake and thrill of discovery, far less for their use. An expression seeker however would be less interested in the process and challenge of the search, but more in "How can we use that in interesting new ways?"

Most of the short examples you mention are about intriguing exisiting situations, with lots of potential. But the thrill implied by your post isn't about searching and finding these situations, but rather about what to do in them, and how your choices shape the world/ story- Expression, not Discovery.

As to the questions raised by the OP, I'll answer them at a later date, when I have more time.

Interesting thread.

Man_Over_Game
2019-05-28, 05:25 PM
Directed at OP.

While we all might want different things, we all expect all of them. In that regard, railroading is sometimes the method to keep things connected and controlled. You cannot, for example, have a dramatic car scene without roads, and roads require civilizations, and your players have been requesting that you make more car scenes. One thing led to another, and now the primary aesthetic of your world is a cityscape.

That's what railroading should be. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Even a well designed piece of equipment might be made stronger with some glue and duct tape.

Even for an AS like Exploration (Discovery), railroading helps draw in the other components, or allows us to maintain control of the environment before things run rampant. Otherwise, you have someone abusing the physics of floating rocks to fuel some weird catapult spell of theirs as a cheap method of flying teleportation.

It's good to have control of the game, just like it's good to maintain control of a riding horse, or to pull on your dog's leash so he doesn't run into traffic.


I do have some difficulty separating the AS's of Sensation/Fantasy/Discovery. For me, they all seem like they accomplish the same things: Experience weird and cool things.

Quertus
2019-05-28, 07:08 PM
My response isn't meant as criticism. It's intended as an outside look, to hopefully help define your aesthetics....

To me, what you describe doesn't look like "Discovery", but "Expression". Discovery aesthetics focuses on the search and the moment of finding somehing hidden, while Expression is about utilizing something in the world (Your own character or something else) in new ways, and let them affect the world. To make an impression of your choices/ deeds/ self on the world.

If I'm using the example of the flying rocks, an Expression seeker would be thrilled by the search and ultimate find of the rocks. Utilizing them won't be as exciting for them... Finding them, and possibly secrets behind them maybe, but for the sake and thrill of discovery, far less for their use. An expression seeker however would be less interested in the process and challenge of the search, but more in "How can we use that in interesting new ways?"

Most of the short examples you mention are about intriguing exisiting situations, with lots of potential. But the thrill implied by your post isn't about searching and finding these situations, but rather about what to do in them, and how your choices shape the world/ story- Expression, not Discovery.

As to the questions raised by the OP, I'll answer them at a later date, when I have more time.

Interesting thread.

*This* is what your responses look like when you have less time? :smalleek:

Wow. I know my meds are giving me issues currently, but I must have quite the reputation if you feel you need to precede this with a "this isn't an attack" warning. :smalleek:

So, hmmm… apparently, Angry doesn't talk about an "exploration" aesthetic. At least he does call them "aesthetics" at some point.

So, by the definitions Angry gives, I'm… huge into Expression, and I hate Expression. I'm fairly big into Discovery, and I hate Discovery. :smallconfused:

From the MDA descriptions, I'm kinda meh on everything.

I'm largely into "what will the players do with these tools", from either side of the screen.

From your explanation, yeah, I'm guessing you had a typo or something, and that was supposed to be "Discovery seeker" in your 3rd paragraph, and I'd be primarily into Expression?

Inchhighguy
2019-05-28, 08:19 PM
I want a world full of color and wonder, where we can write our own stories.

If the GM has already written the story, that defeats the point. They can go read that to their kids. Just give us the tools to write our own, and be the fair arbiter of our success or failure (or of our successes and failures).


Your way sounds horrible for a DM though. The DM puts in a TON of work to make a TON of stuff....and then just sits way, way back and just arbitrates rule things when asked.

How can that be fun for a DM?

Really if your a player that is just wrting your own story...why do you even need or what to have a DM? Or even need or want to play a RPG? The player could just take all the stuff the DM made up...and stay home and write ''their" novel.

Quertus
2019-05-28, 08:32 PM
Your way sounds horrible for a DM though. The DM puts in a TON of work to make a TON of stuff....and then just sits way, way back and just arbitrates rule things when asked.

How can that be fun for a DM?

Really if your a player that is just wrting your own story...why do you even need or what to have a DM? Or even need or want to play a RPG? The player could just take all the stuff the DM made up...and stay home and write ''their" novel.

Actually, it's easier for the GM.

Under what I'm guessing is the style you're used to, the GM has to create the content create the plot roleplay the NPCs arbitrate the rules railroad the plot
Under my paradigm, the GM can ignore steps 2&5. So, it's only 3/5 the work! (More or less)

Could the players kick the GM after he provides the content? #1 is done, #2&5 don't need his input, and the players could arbitrate the rules… but somebody's got to roleplay all those NPCs. So, almost.

EDIT: as to how not railroading the plot could possibly be fun for the GM… well, if I have to explain that, something's wrong already. But seeing what someone else makes with all the cool toys you've left them? Role-playing scads of NPCs? Watching people discover your world?

Tvtyrant
2019-05-28, 08:42 PM
Personally I like having a story to follow along with as a player, and just enough room to make my castle/town/spaceship as a diversion. I hate total sandbox worlds, the party never agrees on what to do and either the game feels like "wandering around aimlessly the game" or we don't find much to do and become farmers. Give me a good solid "save the world" plot and enough down time to do some zanny stuff between sections.

ErdrickOfAliaha
2019-05-28, 11:35 PM
I feel like there's some confusion about the "sandbox". The DM isn't just sitting back the whole time. As the PCs follow whatever 'hook' they chose, the world is still dynamic elsewhere. Say you have 5 general paths marked off as potential initial adventures. Even though the PCs can only go down one of them, that doesn't stop events from happening in the other 4 (or all 5 if the PCs trailblaze). This sort of "living world" IS more work, but it has a better feel. Now there are corners that get cut a bit, for instance I will have individual 'setting skins' for different towns and dungeons, but there may not be distinct maps for all of them. I may only have one map for the first dungeon (on each of the 5 paths), but there will be 5 different populations each with their own motivations.

To me, this creates a discovery/exploration AS. Tbh, the two are closely related to me. Exploration of the external world often leads to internal discovery: "'they' aren't so different from 'us'" etc.

geppetto
2019-05-29, 12:46 AM
I like all of them in a campaign. I make it a point NOT to run the same kind of adventure over and over. We might do a couple sessions with an open sandbox while I'm developing something else, then a hook they decided to follow up becomes a more linear story, after which they might do a site based treasure hunt or a series of short episodic adventures around a homebase.

Whatever, just a lot of variety from adventure to adventure.

Yora
2019-05-29, 02:45 AM
Every sandbox needs a goal. When the claim is that the sandbox does not have a goal, it usually seems to be actually hexcrawling. But without consensus what you are doing, there is no game.

Lorsa
2019-05-29, 03:00 AM
I've liked the eight aesthetics of gameplay from a design perspective. What are you doing, and why? Less helpful from an in the moment decision, but as an overall view of what I as GM want, and what the players want its super helpful.

In fact I think the most important take away from MDA theory is that as players we experience aesthetics first, but the designers of a game can only really give us the mechanics. They can't directly give us an aesthetic appeal, at best they can structure the mechanics to give the aesthetics they think we the players should experience.

Extrapolate that to game in general, if you don't think Game X is doing what you want, then maybe its not actually the game you should play. Try Game Y instead.

For example, playing FFVI and expecting an expression driven fantasy/exploration game probably not going to happen, if you want that maybe try Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Want a pure fantasy/exploration game, not worried about expression or narrative? GTA V probably a good choice. Game as narrative, lets get back to FFVI.

The designer of, say a computer game, can actually think about the aesthetics first and not the mechanics if they choose to do so. A designer of a RPG can do the same, but has a lot less control over the outcome due to the GM that acts as a go-between. On the GM side, it's definitely possible to think about what type of aesthetics to bring to the table.

The best games are often when the designers think about the core aesthetics first, and then design "backwards" to the mechanics needed to support it.



So I want a game that’s a story, but one in which the results of the story are based on the actions I take.

I’m interested in some level of challenge, but at the “how do we resolve the scenario” level, not so much the “how do we defeat the monster” level and almost none at the “how do I optimize this character” level.

There’s definitely some “fantasy” in there.

I’m not sure how that qualifies. More interestingly, I think there are people whose gaming I would not be compatible with that would come up with similar rankings.

It's true that people can be attracted by the same core aesthetics, but still like different things. For a computer game example, some people may like the challenge of a good puzzle game whereas others prefer the challenge of a FPS. Same AS, different style.

So, based on what you said, it seems to me your preferences would fall under Expression, Challenge and Fantasy. Not that it matters that much, as the detailed descriptions you bring are better than just stating an overall abstract.

But if we delve into your desire for a game that is a story; what more precisely do you mean? What constitutes a "story" for you? Does it need to follow a certain narrative structure? Is the pacing important (as in, do you want the GM to control scenes in a way that reduces your freedom as a player, but increases the narrative structure of the game)? There can be a lot hidden in the idea of "story" - which really needs to be untangled for someone that aims to be your GM.



Directed at OP.

While we all might want different things, we all expect all of them. In that regard, railroading is sometimes the method to keep things connected and controlled. You cannot, for example, have a dramatic car scene without roads, and roads require civilizations, and your players have been requesting that you make more car scenes. One thing led to another, and now the primary aesthetic of your world is a cityscape.

That's what railroading should be. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Even a well designed piece of equipment might be made stronger with some glue and duct tape.

Even for an AS like Exploration (Discovery), railroading helps draw in the other components, or allows us to maintain control of the environment before things run rampant. Otherwise, you have someone abusing the physics of floating rocks to fuel some weird catapult spell of theirs as a cheap method of flying teleportation.

It's good to have control of the game, just like it's good to maintain control of a riding horse, or to pull on your dog's leash so he doesn't run into traffic.

It's not really railroading that maintains control of the environment, it's the creation of a proper environment to begin with. If you need to use railroading, you didn't really do a good job in the first place. Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with using the game world to create a cheap method of flying teleportation. It's only wrong under certain assumptions of the game, and for certain core AS.

The "car scene" thing you describe seems to be a case of players looking for some combination of Submission and Fantasy. For that type of AS, railroading may not be that bad, as you describe. But again, we are talking about a special case, which is what I wanted to highlight all along.



I do have some difficulty separating the AS's of Sensation/Fantasy/Discovery. For me, they all seem like they accomplish the same things: Experience weird and cool things.

Sensation is experiencing things that are real with your physical senses. For computer games, it's having cool graphics and good music. Fantasy is about immersing yourself in something that is not real. It's the reason why Vampire tM: Bloodlines for many people is a way better computer game than many newer ones, despite the crappy graphics.

Discovery is not really about experiencing things, but finding hidden things. It can be in different ways; like finding a combination of mechanics that can be abused in an unintended way or looking for "the cow level". From what I understand, if we compare two players playing Skyrim, the fantasy one would just go along the main paths and interact with the obvious (and well constructed) parts of the world. Someone whose main interest is discovery on the other hand would most likely venture in completely different directions, looking for what's in those hidden caves or if any house in the city has some strange items hidden in a chest in the furthest corner. They'll feel rewarded if they actually find something there (and might be bored if they do not).

In RPGs, as Angry describes in his article, it's hard to really target Sensation as the main AS. Not impossible, just harder.



*This* is what your responses look like when you have less time? :smalleek:

Wow. I know my meds are giving me issues currently, but I must have quite the reputation if you feel you need to precede this with a "this isn't an attack" warning. :smalleek:

So, hmmm… apparently, Angry doesn't talk about an "exploration" aesthetic. At least he does call them "aesthetics" at some point.

So, by the definitions Angry gives, I'm… huge into Expression, and I hate Expression. I'm fairly big into Discovery, and I hate Discovery. :smallconfused:

From the MDA descriptions, I'm kinda meh on everything.

I'm largely into "what will the players do with these tools", from either side of the screen.

From your explanation, yeah, I'm guessing you had a typo or something, and that was supposed to be "Discovery seeker" in your 3rd paragraph, and I'd be primarily into Expression?

Yes, there was a typo in the reply. I spotted it too.

From your descriptions, it sounds to me that you are mostly attracted by both Discovery AND Expression. What makes you say that you hate expression? And that you hate discovery?



I feel like there's some confusion about the "sandbox". The DM isn't just sitting back the whole time. As the PCs follow whatever 'hook' they chose, the world is still dynamic elsewhere. Say you have 5 general paths marked off as potential initial adventures. Even though the PCs can only go down one of them, that doesn't stop events from happening in the other 4 (or all 5 if the PCs trailblaze). This sort of "living world" IS more work, but it has a better feel. Now there are corners that get cut a bit, for instance I will have individual 'setting skins' for different towns and dungeons, but there may not be distinct maps for all of them. I may only have one map for the first dungeon (on each of the 5 paths), but there will be 5 different populations each with their own motivations.

To me, this creates a discovery/exploration AS. Tbh, the two are closely related to me. Exploration of the external world often leads to internal discovery: "'they' aren't so different from 'us'" etc.

AFAIK, exploration is just another name for the discovery AS.

Lorsa
2019-05-29, 06:45 AM
Rather than being focused on trying to fit yourself into any AS of play categories, or discussing what they mean, I am still wondering if it is possible to come up with a list of what type of GMing techniques mesh best with certain player preferences. The AS were just an easy shortcut to try and group together different desires.

For example, which type of player preferences really require, or want, the GM to do a lot of improvisation? Which preferences feel that GM improvisation makes the game quality worse?

Rather than trying, forever, to argue about which GMing skills or techniques or whatnot are good or bad and claiming it has to do with preferences, can we try to match the techniques to specific preferences?

My goal is to increase our understand of how our GMing practices are shaped by the desires of our players, and help figure out what to bring to the table when faced with new players (whose preferences are still known).

Quertus
2019-05-29, 08:33 AM
Every sandbox needs a goal. When the claim is that the sandbox does not have a goal, it usually seems to be actually hexcrawling. But without consensus what you are doing, there is no game.

I find this an interesting idea, but I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Instead of misrepresenting you, I'll just explain my own experiences.

So, I find that "a sandbox" is not generally as useful as a thematic sandbox - a political sandbox, a hex crawl, etc.

When one creates a sandbox for a child / patient, the goal is to facilitate them expressing themselves. Sometimes, it's very focused expression, designed to facilitate "tell me about your family".

When I make a sandbox, I try to include lots of toys that I think players / the players might enjoy playing with.

-----

You can have a game where 4 players are playing "tactical basketball simulator", and the 5th is playing "highschool drama / romance". In fact, I prefer when not all the players are viewing things the same way, stepping on each other's toes, trying to outdo each other in tactical basketball.

To enjoy the game, I'm going to want to create one or more goals for myself: finish the season with a winning record, win the state championship, impress the talent scouts, beat some record (perhaps set by a previous character), win the love of some girl/guy by/despite participating in a game where I have no talent.

That goal doesn't need to be shared by the rest of the group. Or even shared with the group.


From your descriptions, it sounds to me that you are mostly attracted by both Discovery AND Expression. What makes you say that you hate expression? And that you hate discovery?

Discovery? All that talk of needing to check every house, delve every dungeon in the far churners of the world? Ugh. Sounds like a chore. I want there to be things worth discovering… "in the girl next door", so to speak. I don't want the world to feel like cardboard props, where we *just happened* to walk down the one and only interesting path. I want wherever we choose to go to have elements worth existing, worth exploring.

Expression? Asking players to create the world? 3e book-diving character creation? No thanks. Now, I'll do world-building, so that my character comes from somewhere, but I want a virgin world to explore, to have my characters leave their mark on. I mean, I guess we could rotate GMs as the party travels from one person's territory to another's - that might work? But it limits the ability to do larger-scale hidden world-building (all lefties are demigods, or 200' down is the edge of the universe, for example).

Quertus
2019-05-29, 08:36 AM
preferences really require, or want, the GM to do a lot of improvisation?

Require… improv? <Shutter>.

Anyone know of such a preference?

Lorsa
2019-05-29, 08:49 AM
Require… improv? <Shutter>.

Anyone know of such a preference?

I'll answer your other post later, but this one is easy.

For example, if the preference is for character-to-character interaction in the form of theater-like "speaking as the character" (which I assume is not uncommon in RPG circles). In that case, the GM when portraying NPCs acting out conversations with the PCs has to do a lot of improvisation as there is no script to follow. The players may say any "random" thing, and it's impossible to have pre-planned scripted responses to any single sentence they may come up with. Therefore, the GM has to improvise.

Lorsa
2019-05-29, 09:28 AM
Discovery? All that talk of needing to check every house, delve every dungeon in the far churners of the world? Ugh. Sounds like a chore. I want there to be things worth discovering… "in the girl next door", so to speak. I don't want the world to feel like cardboard props, where we *just happened* to walk down the one and only interesting path. I want wherever we choose to go to have elements worth existing, worth exploring.

Expression? Asking players to create the world? 3e book-diving character creation? No thanks. Now, I'll do world-building, so that my character comes from somewhere, but I want a virgin world to explore, to have my characters leave their mark on. I mean, I guess we could rotate GMs as the party travels from one person's territory to another's - that might work? But it limits the ability to do larger-scale hidden world-building (all lefties are demigods, or 200' down is the edge of the universe, for example).

As I said, I don't really want to get bogged down in a discussion about how preferences might or might not fit into the 8 AS of play. I personally found them to be the thus far best abstract model for what people are looking for in games, which is why I brought it up.

So if not discovery, your preference may be in fantasy. However, the "delving into every dungeon at the far corners of the world" is just an example. It's not the end-all of the discovery aesthetic. Rather, I would ask you the following question:

When interacting with the fictional world presented by a GM at the RP table, what is it that is your main attractive "emotion" so to speak. Is it the feeling of learning something new about the world wherever that may be, or is it simply existing as a character in the world.

Similarly, I think the difference between fantasy first and expression first can be put in the question of "do you want there to be a place where your character fits in the world, or do you want to create your own place?".

In any case, why do you think expression is about asking the players to create the world? The AS you aim for as a GM may be different than the one your players are aiming for. If you are doing the world-building, then that may trigger the expression AS for you, whereas interacting with the world could trigger different AS for your players (mind you, I also think people heavy into world building could prefer the challenge AS).

However, when you say "I want a virgin world to explore, to have my characters leave their mark on", it really sounds to be like discovery and expression. Someone else might state their preference as "I want a virgin world to explore, full of obstacles to overcome", placing the challenge AS in there. Or even "I want to enjoy being part of a really solid story, where my character part of a group of friends" thus emphasizing narrative and fellowship.

So, either you're not expressing your desires clearly (perhaps deliberately?), or you're misunderstanding how they mesh with the AS (because you are stuck on examples that don't quite fit?). Because to me, it seems like you are stating something that would clearly fall under one or two of those, but somehow refuse to acknowledge that they fit. Is it because you're set on disproving the reliability of the AS model? I mean, what is your end goal?

kyoryu
2019-05-29, 09:43 AM
I think the top level idea of the thread - instead of railroading good/bad or the like, talk about when you would/wouldn’t use it.

I don’t think the AS model is helpful in this case, because it doesn’t map to preferences in a meaningful way without further information. For instance, we can’t say “railroading is good if you want story” because I want story, yet railroading is the opposite of what I want.

For one, I am not “set on disproving it”. It’s a model, and models aren’t really true or false - they’re only more or less useful. In this case, it doesn’t seem to map well enough to the actual individual preferences that using it, in this context, seems to add value. If it did, I’d be all over it.

—————————

I’ll answer your other questions later.

Lorsa
2019-05-29, 10:00 AM
I think the top level idea of the thread - instead of railroading good/bad or the like, talk about when you would/wouldn’t use it.

I don’t think the AS model is helpful in this case, because it doesn’t map to preferences in a meaningful way without further information. For instance, we can’t say “railroading is good if you want story” because I want story, yet railroading is the opposite of what I want.

For one, I am not “set on disproving it”. It’s a model, and models aren’t really true or false - they’re only more or less useful. In this case, it doesn’t seem to map well enough to the actual individual preferences that using it, in this context, seems to add value. If it did, I’d be all over it.

That's fair enough. If the model isn't useful for the main idea, then don't use it. Perhaps I should re-formulate the title then?

It does create interesting questions though, as what type of stories need railroading to accomplish, and which do not. For example, I can see a dividing line between people who simply want to experience a story and those who want to be part of creating it.

Edit: corrected a typo...

Morgaln
2019-05-29, 10:06 AM
That's far enough. If the model isn't useful for the main idea, then don't use it. Perhaps I should re-formulate the title then?

It does create interesting questions though, as what type of stories need railroading to accomplish, and which do not. For example, I can see a dividing line between people who simply want to experience a story and those who want to be part of creating it.

Problem is, first you'd have to define railroading in a way that everyone agrees on. From what I've seen in the other thread, definitions and interpretations vary wildly. If there is no consensus on what the term means, you won't get any conclusive answers to questions depending on that term.

kyoryu
2019-05-29, 10:07 AM
Problem is, first you'd have to define railroading in a way that everyone agrees on. From what I've seen in the other thread, definitions and interpretations vary wildly. If there is no consensus on what the term means, you won't get any conclusive answers to questions depending on that term.

Then don’t use the term. Describe what you mean, and state where it would be useful or not.

In the other threads I’ve seen, people agreed that various concepts existed - what they disagreed on, mostly, was which piece of jargon to attach to which concept.

kyoryu
2019-05-29, 10:39 AM
Designing a game as a linear series of encounters that the players will go through, with little or no ability to modify that series, has some advantages and disadvantages.

It’s advantages are that it allows the GM to plan out what will happen and thus create twists and do foreshadowing far in advance. It also allows the GM to focus prep on a small set of things, and thus have more “set piece” encounters. Additionally, it can, in some cases (see below) result in less improvisation required by the GM. Additionally, it can allow players to take a more passive role in terms of deciding the overall path of the game.

The primary downside is the removal of ability for players to determine what happens - for some players, this is a primary reason to play.

If this is done with the knowledge of the players, they can avoid attempts to invalidate the sequence, and reduce the improvisation required. However, if the GM does this while maintaining that they are not, then improvisation requirements can be very high as the GM must come up with ways to ensure the players go to the next scene, regardless of their actions. Additionally, doing so can often cause discontent among players, especially ones that have “make decisions about what happens” as a primary goal of play.

This technique is recommended for situations where you have a GM that is uncomfortable with improv, combined with players that have a high desire for highly designed content - set piece encounters, or complex twists in a story with high foreshadowing, etc., combined with players that do not care about “plot level” decision making and are comfortable with “scene-level” or “character-level” decision making.

It is not recommended for groups with players who care primarily about “plot-level” decision making (aka, “what is the next scene”) as this invalidates this style of play.

Extreme care should be used when deciding to use this technique while claiming that a GM is not - if the players don’t care, then there is no harm in telling them what you’re doing. However, if the players do care then this can lead to high levels of discontent or campaign implosion.

(That what you’re looking for, Lorsa?)

Lorsa
2019-05-29, 02:37 PM
(That what you’re looking for, Lorsa?)

Yes, that is precisely it!

What about other GMing techniques, such as waiting with deciding plot relevant information until the time it comes up in play (or changing something they decided on earlier but the players are unaware of)? For which preferences might that be valid vs. detrimental?

And what about your preference for the type of story (still undefined), combined with situation solving challenges and some fantasy aesthetics? What sort of GMing techniques are useful for that?

kyoryu
2019-05-29, 03:11 PM
That’s a longer answer than I can get to atm. I’ll resoind later, promise!

Quertus
2019-05-29, 04:14 PM
I'll answer your other post later, but this one is easy.

For example, if the preference is for character-to-character interaction in the form of theater-like "speaking as the character" (which I assume is not uncommon in RPG circles). In that case, the GM when portraying NPCs acting out conversations with the PCs has to do a lot of improvisation as there is no script to follow. The players may say any "random" thing, and it's impossible to have pre-planned scripted responses to any single sentence they may come up with. Therefore, the GM has to improvise.

Ah. To me, role-playing an existing NPC is a much different beast from creating or modifying an NPC on the fly.

I mean, for that matter, I've never seen a player be handed a scrip to read from, so that level of "improv" that is inherent to role-playing didn't seem, to me, worth making a distinction for, unless we're including war games or similar, where the PCs actions could conceivably be scripted.


So, either you're not expressing your desires clearly (perhaps deliberately?), or you're misunderstanding how they mesh with the AS (because you are stuck on examples that don't quite fit?). Because to me, it seems like you are stating something that would clearly fall under one or two of those, but somehow refuse to acknowledge that they fit. Is it because you're set on disproving the reliability of the AS model? I mean, what is your end goal?

Wow. Accusations of deliberate clarity omission? That's a first. You really don't pull your punches, do you?

I was pulling from the descriptions the Angry GM gave of these aesthetics, as the linked article seemed a bit spartan. Clearly, you disagree with him. Shrug. I disagree with him most of the time myself.

As to my end goal… immortality, a good woman to share it with, and to live "truly madly deeply" rather than "Painters".

But for this thread? Eh, I wasn't sure, but I didn't believe in the premise, so… to poke at it with a stick, hoping other Playgrounders would join the thread? Some have, and it seems that the premise has been brought into question, and changed. Cool. So, now I'll test that out, to see how it fares.


So if not discovery, your preference may be in fantasy. However, the "delving into every dungeon at the far corners of the world" is just an example. It's not the end-all of the discovery aesthetic. Rather, I would ask you the following question:

When interacting with the fictional world presented by a GM at the RP table, what is it that is your main attractive "emotion" so to speak. Is it the feeling of learning something new about the world wherever that may be, or is it simply existing as a character in the world.

Emotion? This sounds promising. Except… I'm not sure… and even my guesses are "it varies".

When I hear about an adventure, I often find myself thinking, "what would *we* have done in that scenario?". Which sounds to me like Fellowship x Expression.

During the game… I think that, these days, I'm too busy "metagaming like a mother****ing dolphin" (itself "fellowship"?) to feel much. Back when I was more immersed, I primarily enjoyed the feel of the character, things that both involved and merited significant thought, and… moments. Like, that moment when you learn that Samus is a girl, or the moment you realize "we waded through them like they were humans" would make a great party slogan.

When I hear a pitch, I feel "oh, Quertus would love it there!"

After the fact, I remember stories. Not "the story", but stories like, "I had this one GM who, halfway through the first session, I could accurately predict how many and which PCs would still be conscious at the end of the climactic final battle against the BBEG, because that's what he would believe would make for the 'best' story". Or the backwards party that surrendered to the (monstrous) authorities, and later allied with the intended BBEG. Or the time that the party paladin made a powerful demon believe my Wizard was Uber epic level (and I was clueless what was going on until well after the fact). Or the Monk who solo'd encounters that, for most parties, would spell TPK. Or "and then there was the time that Armus looted his own dead body".


Similarly, I think the difference between fantasy first and expression first can be put in the question of "do you want there to be a place where your character fits in the world, or do you want to create your own place?".

Well, my classic descriptor for my characters is, "they're not from around here", so I'm pretty sure it's the latter.


In any case, why do you think expression is about asking the players to create the world?

Because Angry said so.


The AS you aim for as a GM may be different than the one your players are aiming for. If you are doing the world-building, then that may trigger the expression AS for you, whereas interacting with the world could trigger different AS for your players (mind you, I also think people heavy into world building could prefer the challenge AS).

Challenge… I enjoy war games, but RPG combat is… lacking, in comparison. I do enjoy other challenges - primarily ones involving player skill, from puzzles to ones heavy with Expression.


However, when you say "I want a virgin world to explore, to have my characters leave their mark on", it really sounds to be like discovery and expression. Someone else might state their preference as "I want a virgin world to explore, full of obstacles to overcome", placing the challenge AS in there. Or even "I want to enjoy being part of a really solid story, where my character part of a group of friends" thus emphasizing narrative and fellowship.

So, Discovery and Expression.

But if a GM wastes their time throwing in details in hidden chests in far corners of the world, or wants me to invent whole cloth (outside the character I bring) rather than use what they've provided, then they will likely be very disappointed.


Then don’t use the term. Describe what you mean, and state where it would be useful or not.

In the other threads I’ve seen, people agreed that various concepts existed - what they disagreed on, mostly, was which piece of jargon to attach to which concept.

Brilliant advice. I'll propose "R1" - "changing game physics or facts to cause or prevent an outcome". Really handy if you want to protect your plot-critical DMPC from a determined party, or to prevent a random TPK; ridiculous in the context of a war game.

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-29, 04:34 PM
As a player, especially at this stage, I kind of don't care too much. Give me a story to follow, and I'll cheerfully follow the the railroad tracks. It means I'M not DMing for a change... I'm not particularly interested in (or very good at) character exploration - and some might legitimately claim that is because I am a very simple Lich. Stick me in a genre I'm not particularly comfortable with (i.e. westerns) and I'll play if everyone else wants to, and I'll do my resonable best, but otherwise I'm just not going to be quite as invested or capable.

(I could not, for example, manage to hold my own as a PC in Lanipator's Role With Me podcast - those guys and girl are FAAAAR better at the roleplaying aspect than ever will be even after me despite me having been doing it just about as long as they've been, like, alive...!)

And, if I want to be really, brutually honest... I think I am kinda not into collaborative storytelling? Beyond a certain point, anyway? That sounds kinda mean, doesn't it? But it's true. I mean, I'm not 100% opposed to input and stuff, but it has to be within, y'know, limits - built on new ground, as it were. (Laid out, it's probably way more inflexiable than in reality, though I suspect those of you who are really into that collaborative end might find it so.)

Tell me a story, and I'm happy. Let ME tell a story, and I'm happy. (Sufficiently happy to have done the lion's share of the DMing over the years.) Too much of a control freak, I suspect is the honest truth (I mean, come on, megalomanical, omnicidal undead abomination, what would you expect?) to be especially happy with both at once. Outside of a wargame, anyway. (Because my wargames are ALSO stories, not competitions, I think, in reality.)



So if I'm going to DM, the proviso is simple - I am going to be spending a ridiculous amount of time OCDing it to be Right when I do it. When I want input, it will be asked for (if I can ACTUALLY get any out of my players...), otherwise it will be a case of "I'm will be running this party next" and the quest will be all my story, as it were. (Not unlike playing a computer RPG, to be honest.)

(My games are essentially, much more about the Stuff Being Done than the Who is Doing The Stuff, because that is the way I'm wired. I don't find deep character exploration in any other medium to be engaging in and of itself, to my games are no different.)

Thus, for the evening games it will be "we is doing' Rise of the Runelords, we'll sort characters, right as much or as little background as you like and I will fill in the gaps if any need filling - oh and we may be running an AP as a next-generation sequel, so during campaign, give thought to how you will achieve said next gen."

For the day quests it might be "Dreemaenhyll campaign world, party is Dark Lord's Secret Black Ops, background comes mostly from your chosen race/class/culture" or "Aotrs liches Does The Stargate, you don't have to right reams, but considering how OP broken you're going to be (yes, it's still a downgrade from the other scifi party and this is why they're retiring this year), I want you to at least make the critical decisions in your background as to your death, why the Aotrs would have recruited you and why you might get seconded to siad Aotrs!SG program an as per usual, I will does for you on that1."



Fortunately, I have the double-edged sword of my players being quite happy do to pretty much anything I suggest, so I have the freedom to do that. (The other edge being that sometimes it is difficult to get anything out of them, because they aren't as bothered (driven?) about it all as me.) It helps that the majority of my base of players I have known in time that can be measured in one to three decades (or longer in some cases. on the one hand, since before I started playing, even or all their lives before THEY started gaming on the other!)




1The forums even got... graced... with a write-up of the first installement of that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462170-The-Myst-Project-Aotrs-Myst-Exploratory-Team-Mission-001), which is to the level which I run at - admittedly, this was a two-parter (it took me most of the preceding year to get the ground work for it done, and that was just taking a couple of things already existant and hammering them into an operational state...

jjordan
2019-05-29, 05:13 PM
I like the eight categories as a starting point for discussion, but I think trying to put too much into them is a mistake. What's really important is for all the participants to sit down and talk about what they want out of the game. The group should come to a rough consensus on this point and the eight categories are useful point to begin at. If someone wants something radically different than the rest and isn't willing to compromise then they should move on. The game moves on on from there and should receive constant feedback. The GM is watching to see how material is received, the players are talking to each other during play, and after play everyone is talking so that adjustments can be made.

All of which is merely my opinion and completely ignores pre-packaged settings and Adventurer's League-style of play where you surrender a certain amount of agency and just agree to play the scenario that's put in front of you and expect the GM to herd you back towards the main road if you wander too far afield.

Quertus
2019-05-29, 06:02 PM
Designing a game as a linear series of encounters that the players will go through, with little or no ability to modify that series, has some advantages and disadvantages.

It’s advantages are that it allows the GM to plan out what will happen and thus create twists and do foreshadowing far in advance. It also allows the GM to focus prep on a small set of things, and thus have more “set piece” encounters. Additionally, it can, in some cases (see below) result in less improvisation required by the GM. Additionally, it can allow players to take a more passive role in terms of deciding the overall path of the game.

The primary downside is the removal of ability for players to determine what happens - for some players, this is a primary reason to play.

If this is done with the knowledge of the players, they can avoid attempts to invalidate the sequence, and reduce the improvisation required. However, if the GM does this while maintaining that they are not, then improvisation requirements can be very high as the GM must come up with ways to ensure the players go to the next scene, regardless of their actions. Additionally, doing so can often cause discontent among players, especially ones that have “make decisions about what happens” as a primary goal of play.

This technique is recommended for situations where you have a GM that is uncomfortable with improv, combined with players that have a high desire for highly designed content - set piece encounters, or complex twists in a story with high foreshadowing, etc., combined with players that do not care about “plot level” decision making and are comfortable with “scene-level” or “character-level” decision making.

It is not recommended for groups with players who care primarily about “plot-level” decision making (aka, “what is the next scene”) as this invalidates this style of play.

Extreme care should be used when deciding to use this technique while claiming that a GM is not - if the players don’t care, then there is no harm in telling them what you’re doing. However, if the players do care then this can lead to high levels of discontent or campaign implosion.

(That what you’re looking for, Lorsa?)

So, linear + Participationism is low maintenance, Illusionism is high maintenance. To which I'll add, Sandbox + "what are we doing next time" is also low maintenance (and, in fact, very similar on most stats - curious that); hex crawl / "passive world" sandbox is also low maintenance; active world, high spontaneity sandbox is high maintenance.

kyoryu
2019-05-29, 06:40 PM
So, linear + Participationism is low maintenance, Illusionism is high maintenance. To which I'll add, Sandbox + "what are we doing next time" is also low maintenance (and, in fact, very similar on most stats - curious that); hex crawl / "passive world" sandbox is also low maintenance; active world, high spontaneity sandbox is high maintenance.

Low improvisation. Maintenance can be as high as you want in any of these.

Quertus
2019-05-29, 08:48 PM
Low improvisation. Maintenance can be as high as you want in any of these.

Ah, yes. That's what I meant.:smallredface:

So, to avoid improvisation, one would summize that I would run linear + Participationism, static sandbox, or "what's next?". Whereas I would avoid Illusionism and active sandboxes.

kyoryu
2019-05-30, 09:32 AM
Ah, yes. That's what I meant.:smallredface:

So, to avoid improvisation, one would summize that I would run linear + Participationism, static sandbox, or "what's next?". Whereas I would avoid Illusionism and active sandboxes.

Yeah. That seems fairly evident, right?

Note that the type of improvisation changes too. Improvisation to keep a R(k) game on the rails is not the same as what’s done in an “active sandbox”

Earthwalker
2019-05-30, 09:51 AM
Ah, yes. That's what I meant.:smallredface:

So, to avoid improvisation, one would summize that I would run linear + Participationism, static sandbox, or "what's next?". Whereas I would avoid Illusionism and active sandboxes.

I think "whats next" has potential to be all over the place for improvisation.

Generally for me the "whats next" only gets me the next "scene" and the outcome of that can lead off to new places. Very rarely does the end of one sessions "whats next" fill the next session.

kyoryu
2019-05-30, 10:10 AM
I think "whats next" has potential to be all over the place for improvisation.

Generally for me the "whats next" only gets me the next "scene" and the outcome of that can lead off to new places. Very rarely does the end of one sessions "whats next" fill the next session.

In this context I believe “what’s next” is at the “next session” scope - prepping the material for the next session, but with an assumption (whether linear or location-based) that the players will engage with the prepped content and not attempt to “color outside the lines”.

(Note that I think that even location-based games, done right, require some amount of improvisation if they are anything but completely static)

kyoryu
2019-05-30, 11:28 PM
So, by story, here's what I want:

A game that is not just a series of challenges to overcome.
A game where the choices that I make change what happens.
A game with antagonists who react to my actions, and whose actions I must react to. Ideally, anatagonists that can be interacted, vs. just sending an endless stream of minions
Combat to happen when it makes sense, and not as a default mode of play.
Scenes that act mostly as a series of story questions.

Mostly, I want a game that kind of plays out like a TV show, etc. in terms of overall activities and flow, rather than one that's a series of fights. Most movies/TV shows/etc. aren't just a series of fights. That gets boring.

I want characters that are proactive in responding to a situation, rather than ones that are reactive and have things happen to them, or have every move "forced".

I understand that any improvised story must, by definition, be less quality than one that has been written, and that's okay. I'm not looking for something that could be turned around and published as a book - I am looking for something that has roughly that kind of feel.

Lorsa
2019-06-03, 03:02 AM
So, by story, here's what I want:

A game that is not just a series of challenges to overcome.
A game where the choices that I make change what happens.
A game with antagonists who react to my actions, and whose actions I must react to. Ideally, anatagonists that can be interacted, vs. just sending an endless stream of minions
Combat to happen when it makes sense, and not as a default mode of play.
Scenes that act mostly as a series of story questions.

Mostly, I want a game that kind of plays out like a TV show, etc. in terms of overall activities and flow, rather than one that's a series of fights. Most movies/TV shows/etc. aren't just a series of fights. That gets boring.

I want characters that are proactive in responding to a situation, rather than ones that are reactive and have things happen to them, or have every move "forced".

I understand that any improvised story must, by definition, be less quality than one that has been written, and that's okay. I'm not looking for something that could be turned around and published as a book - I am looking for something that has roughly that kind of feel.

Sorry for the late reply, I haven't forgotten my own thread.

That's a good description. In general, it seems like you want the game to be about something (story wise), and not just be about combat for its own sake.

It seems like this style of play would require a lot of improvisation on the part of the GM. Are there other techniques you think are beneficial? For example, would you prefer if the GM thought of the antagonists as "people first" and decided actions on what would make sense for their personality, or would you prefer if they thought of them as "pieces to make game/plot changes" and reacted in a way that would make a fun game even if it was somewhat out of character?

Also, from your list the one that seems most troublesome is the "scenes that act mostly as a series of story questions". How would a GM make sure this happens without falling back on railroading? I can sense that there is a conflict here in allowing player agency in scene selection, while still making sure most scenes further story questions.

As a sidenote, I think it would be fun to GM for you. It's too bad you live so far away. :smallsmile:

MrSandman
2019-06-03, 04:48 AM
Also, from your list the one that seems most troublesome is the "scenes that act mostly as a series of story questions". How would a GM make sure this happens without falling back on railroading? I can sense that there is a conflict here in allowing player agency in scene selection, while still making sure most scenes further story questions.

But isn't railroading the opposite of what kyoryu is describing? Railroaded scenes provide answers to story questions, not questions.

I mean, let's imagine that our hero, Frida, is competing to earn a nobleman's favour to get allies in an inheritance conflict. However, there is another unknown entity trying to get his favour as well. A typical scene using railroading would be: "Frida will discover who the opposition is in scene A" whereas what kyoryu is describing sounds more like Fate's advice: "Will Frida discover who the opposition is before the opposition discovers her identity?" The answer to this question will lead to a new scene that will propose another story question. If she discovered the opposition's identity first, it could be something like "How will Frida use her knowledge to take advantage of the situation?" If she didn't, it could be something like "Will Frida manage to escape from the opposition's thugs?"

I guess that it is important to note that this is based on the premise that there isn't a set story that needs to happen in a somehow predetermined sequence. There is a plot, but how it unfolds depends on the players' decisions (GM also being a player). So there is no need to make sure that scenes steer the stort in one specific direction.

Lorsa
2019-06-03, 06:05 AM
But isn't railroading the opposite of what kyoryu is describing? Railroaded scenes provide answers to story questions, not questions.

I mean, let's imagine that our hero, Frida, is competing to earn a nobleman's favour to get allies in an inheritance conflict. However, there is another unknown entity trying to get his favour as well. A typical scene using railroading would be: "Frida will discover who the opposition is in scene A" whereas what kyoryu is describing sounds more like Fate's advice: "Will Frida discover who the opposition is before the opposition discovers her identity?" The answer to this question will lead to a new scene that will propose another story question. If she discovered the opposition's identity first, it could be something like "How will Frida use her knowledge to take advantage of the situation?" If she didn't, it could be something like "Will Frida manage to escape from the opposition's thugs?"

I guess that it is important to note that this is based on the premise that there isn't a set story that needs to happen in a somehow predetermined sequence. There is a plot, but how it unfolds depends on the players' decisions (GM also being a player). So there is no need to make sure that scenes steer the stort in one specific direction.

What I was trying to point out is the fact that Frida's player might not know which scenes will give answers to the story questions, or have a chance to be about them. If she is trying to discover the opposition to winning a nobleman's favor, for example, the player might suggest spending time at a local tavern trying to collect rumors. However, if played out as an actual scene, this might not provide any answers to the story question. So what is the GM to do? Allow the scene to happen, or skip it until the players suggests a course of action that will allow for Frida to further the story?

I suppose it depends on your definition of a "scene". To me, a scene is something that is played out in more detail during the table. If the GM asks "what do you do?" and the player says "I go to the tavern to look for rumors about the nobleman" and the GM's response is "alright, after 3 hours of talking to the people there, you learn XYZ", that is NOT a scene. If, on the other hand, the GM says "So, around 8 o'clock, Frida arrives at the local tavern, which is now half-filled with tipsy and cheerful townsfolk. The barmaids are busy trying to fill everyone's orders in time, and the loud curses of a bearded man who just lost all his gold at a dice game resounds in the room. What do you do?", then THAT is a scene.

My problem is that it seems to me that if you want to be sure that each scene will answer a story question, then it doesn't mesh very well with the players choosing the scenes. However, if all you need is for the scene to be ABOUT the question, then I suppose it will work. If Frida spends a few hours at the tavern, but learns nothing, it was still a scene that was about trying to find information. It was just unsuccessful.

On the other hand, in a group, other players may also suggest scenes, which may not actually be about the story question. How would the GM deal with those according to kyoryo's preferences?

MrSandman
2019-06-03, 11:37 AM
What I was trying to point out is the fact that Frida's player might not know which scenes will give answers to the story questions, or have a chance to be about them. If she is trying to discover the opposition to winning a nobleman's favor, for example, the player might suggest spending time at a local tavern trying to collect rumors. However, if played out as an actual scene, this might not provide any answers to the story question. So what is the GM to do? Allow the scene to happen, or skip it until the players suggests a course of action that will allow for Frida to further the story?

Oh, but it does answer the question. The story question is not "who is Frida's opposition?" but "will Frida discover the opposition's identity before they discover hers?"
If she goes to a tavern and doesn't manage to find anything, then the answer is "no." (Note that this doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't discover the opposition's identity, only that she does it too late for that to give her an advantage.) So after the scene we know that the opposition has managed to discover Frida's identity and has an advantage over her, which should shape the coming scenes.



I suppose it depends on your definition of a "scene". To me, a scene is something that is played out in more detail during the table. If the GM asks "what do you do?" and the player says "I go to the tavern to look for rumors about the nobleman" and the GM's response is "alright, after 3 hours of talking to the people there, you learn XYZ", that is NOT a scene. If, on the other hand, the GM says "So, around 8 o'clock, Frida arrives at the local tavern, which is now half-filled with tipsy and cheerful townsfolk. The barmaids are busy trying to fill everyone's orders in time, and the loud curses of a bearded man who just lost all his gold at a dice game resounds in the room. What do you do?", then THAT is a scene.

I tend to define scenes as anything that happens in the foreground rather than background (screen stuff, if you will), however long or short that may be, but I can work with yours.



My problem is that it seems to me that if you want to be sure that each scene will answer a story question, then it doesn't mesh very well with the players choosing the scenes. However, if all you need is for the scene to be ABOUT the question, then I suppose it will work. If Frida spends a few hours at the tavern, but learns nothing, it was still a scene that was about trying to find information. It was just unsuccessful.

Can you elaborate further what you mean by the first sentence of this paragraph?



On the other hand, in a group, other players may also suggest scenes, which may not actually be about the story question. How would the GM deal with those according to kyoryo's preferences?

It's hard to say anything concrete when talking so generally, but I guess you'd have two options: A) Figure out how the players' actions relate to the story, or B) Change the story.

Pleh
2019-06-03, 01:17 PM
hex crawl / "passive world" sandbox is also low maintenance

Really? In my work with RPG Maker, I always found the creation of passive, atmospheric elements the players may or may not interact with to be the most tedious and high maintenance.

Unless you mean, "procedurally generated" as if this passive sandbox is full of quantum sand that isn't anything until the players interact with it, which sounds like high sponteneity sandbox to me.

Quertus
2019-06-03, 02:32 PM
Really? In my work with RPG Maker, I always found the creation of passive, atmospheric elements the players may or may not interact with to be the most tedious and high maintenance.

Unless you mean, "procedurally generated" as if this passive sandbox is full of quantum sand that isn't anything until the players interact with it, which sounds like high sponteneity sandbox to me.

I made this hex crawl 20 years ago. I pull it off the shelf, blow the dust off, and run it for you. Minimal ad-lib expected?

Pleh
2019-06-03, 02:57 PM
I made this hex crawl 20 years ago. I pull it off the shelf, blow the dust off, and run it for you. Minimal ad-lib expected?

Okay, using a Premade Adventure is low maintenance, because at some point, the High Amount of Maintenance has already been accomplished.

Feels like we're just pushing the work around, not getting rid of it. May be semantics, but when evaluating how high or low maintenance premade games are, it becomes very important how available said games are.

I, for instance, couldn't simply pull your hex crawl off your shelf and run it for you, unless you gave me access to it. For me to run that Hex Crawl (without you handing over your work), would require me to recreate all of your previous work in setting it up. That's where I see the high maintenance.

kyoryu
2019-06-03, 04:48 PM
Sorry for the late reply, I haven't forgotten my own thread.

That's a good description. In general, it seems like you want the game to be about something (story wise), and not just be about combat for its own sake.

Yes. Well, at least for this type of game.


It seems like this style of play would require a lot of improvisation on the part of the GM. Are there other techniques you think are beneficial? For example, would you prefer if the GM thought of the antagonists as "people first" and decided actions on what would make sense for their personality, or would you prefer if they thought of them as "pieces to make game/plot changes" and reacted in a way that would make a fun game even if it was somewhat out of character?

I think any game that offers players agency in a non-static world requires improvisation. To a certain extent, even if that agency is illusory. You could probably prove it mathematically.


Also, from your list the one that seems most troublesome is the "scenes that act mostly as a series of story questions". How would a GM make sure this happens without falling back on railroading? I can sense that there is a conflict here in allowing player agency in scene selection, while still making sure most scenes further story questions.

"Story question" in this usage does not mean something like "where is the MacGuffin". For the purpose of clarity, I'll call that a mystery. A story question is something more like "do they stop the villain from escaping" or "do they rescue the hostage before the bomb goes off" or "do they get the information they need from the barkeep without owing a potentially nasty favor". Or something like that. Because it's an either/or question, it is anti-railroading.

Assuming the players have bought into the premise of the game (and if they haven't, what are you doing?) then presumably the players are in a bar becuase they're trying to address whatever problem the game is about. If not, that's okay, play it out, whatever.


As a sidenote, I think it would be fun to GM for you. It's too bad you live so far away. :smallsmile:

Likewise! From either side of the table.

Quertus
2019-06-03, 04:56 PM
Okay, using a Premade Adventure is low maintenance, because at some point, the High Amount of Maintenance has already been accomplished.

Feels like we're just pushing the work around, not getting rid of it. May be semantics, but when evaluating how high or low maintenance premade games are, it becomes very important how available said games are.

I, for instance, couldn't simply pull your hex crawl off your shelf and run it for you, unless you gave me access to it. For me to run that Hex Crawl (without you handing over your work), would require me to recreate all of your previous work in setting it up. That's where I see the high maintenance.

Well, my criteria was minimal ad-lib, minimal creation or modification of playing pieces on the fly. Isn't that a standard feature of the hex crawl, that the content exists before session 1?

Pleh
2019-06-03, 09:21 PM
Well, my criteria was minimal ad-lib, minimal creation or modification of playing pieces on the fly. Isn't that a standard feature of the hex crawl, that the content exists before session 1?

It's the phrase, "high maintenance" that I was getting hung up on. To me, the prep work is just as much effort as coming up with it on the fly (actually moreso, because it requires time editting the content as well as the creative effort to come up with ideas, prep is about 3 times as much work as just shooting from the hip).

But it sounds like you're talking straight work done running the session exclusively. Yeah, doing triple the work outside the session makes the session easier.

Lorsa
2019-06-04, 02:45 AM
Oh, but it does answer the question. The story question is not "who is Frida's opposition?" but "will Frida discover the opposition's identity before they discover hers?"
If she goes to a tavern and doesn't manage to find anything, then the answer is "no." (Note that this doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't discover the opposition's identity, only that she does it too late for that to give her an advantage.) So after the scene we know that the opposition has managed to discover Frida's identity and has an advantage over her, which should shape the coming scenes.

Basically it seems like what you are saying is "make sure to ask the right story question for the particular scene in question". Which means you could even divide a larger question into smaller questions (sort how how you move from a goal to a step-wise plan).

However, shouldn't questions also be answerable with "still unknown"? Even if Frida doesn't found anything at the tavern, it's equally possible the opposition does not discover anything of hers. It depends on her approach, does it not?

In my view, there could very well be three scenes (or more?) before we have an answer to "will Frida discover the opposition's identity before they discover hers?". To me, that is not a problem - but I am trying to figure out if it is a problem for others and how to avoid it. I can see how some GMs might think "you want to resolve that question but then you go there? that isn't going to cut it... I better railroad you to the 'correct' location".



Can you elaborate further what you mean by the first sentence of this paragraph?

Well, I have played with GMs who typically would not let me choose scenes myself because it didn't fit into their view of "what would progress the story". And going with the question you put, "will Frida discover the opposition's identity before they discover hers?", I can see that it is possible that a player would attempt to answer it in a way that would generate a scene that you, as a GM, would immediately know isn't going to swing it either way. My question is what to do with those scenes?



It's hard to say anything concrete when talking so generally, but I guess you'd have two options: A) Figure out how the players' actions relate to the story, or B) Change the story.

I guess that is a matter of people having different ideas of what the story should be. Still, it's a potential conflict, and I'm looking for GMing techniques that can help resolve the issue.



Yes. Well, at least for this type of game.



I think any game that offers players agency in a non-static world requires improvisation. To a certain extent, even if that agency is illusory. You could probably prove it mathematically.

Some things are so intuitively true that proving them mathematically is a waste of time. It's interesting that even illusory agency requires improvisation though. I agree, but it might not be as obvious.



"Story question" in this usage does not mean something like "where is the MacGuffin". For the purpose of clarity, I'll call that a mystery. A story question is something more like "do they stop the villain from escaping" or "do they rescue the hostage before the bomb goes off" or "do they get the information they need from the barkeep without owing a potentially nasty favor". Or something like that. Because it's an either/or question, it is anti-railroading.

Assuming the players have bought into the premise of the game (and if they haven't, what are you doing?) then presumably the players are in a bar becuase they're trying to address whatever problem the game is about. If not, that's okay, play it out, whatever.

Ah, I see. To go back to your previous post, it seems you want the scenes to be about something, to have a purpose. Also, you want the outcome of each scene to shape all future scenes to come - that they're all important one way or another. Each one should "stand on its own" in a way.

However, for the question posed by MrSandman, is it possible for a scene to have two questions? That is, "does Frida learn the identity of the opposition?" and "does the opposition learn about Frida?". That way, both could be answered with yes or no in any combination. Would that be acceptable for your style preference?

I would like to note that I think a large part of my games are set up like that; without having the terminology or making the questions explicit. However, since we talking about GM techniques; what are some good ways to make this type of game happen in your view? For example, is it beneficial to actually state these questions out loud before each scene and what is the potential drawback of that?

Another thing I wonder about is how you view "story questions" that are mostly about a character's internal growth. For example, is a scene about "will Arthur find a way to deal with his grief about failing to save the young girl in time?" okay to you?



Likewise! From either side of the table.

Easy solution then! Move to Sweden. 5-6 weeks of paid vacation. Plenty of time for roleplaying!

kyoryu
2019-06-04, 08:46 AM
Basically it seems like what you are saying is "make sure to ask the right story question for the particular scene in question". Which means you could even divide a larger question into smaller questions (sort how how you move from a goal to a step-wise plan).

That's a technique I often use. "We want to banish the demon." "Cool, you'll need to capture the possessed character or get them to agree, you'll need to find a ritual to do so, and you'll need to gather more mages to supply the juice."


However, shouldn't questions also be answerable with "still unknown"? Even if Frida doesn't found anything at the tavern, it's equally possible the opposition does not discover anything of hers. It depends on her approach, does it not?

Potentially? In practice, I like to figure out what the potential stakes are, and make sure that something will happen. If Frida can't find out the answer at the tavern (or even get good info), then I'll probably just RP through the scene quickly and get on with it. However, it's good practice to presume that the plans of your players are reasonable ones - I mean, if they're playing in good faith, then they think they're reasonable!


In my view, there could very well be three scenes (or more?) before we have an answer to "will Frida discover the opposition's identity before they discover hers?".

There totally could be. Which just means that an individual scene may not actually have that question. A few techniques to deal with this:


Break it down into sub-problems/requirements to meet (this works best if the requirements really are requirements, like the demon banishing above)
Find a question for each scene, and play through them naturalistically (this has the issue that it can make things take reallllly long
I've been playing with the idea of setting a number of scenes to answer larger questions, and trying to hold to that - if the players do something that would get them 1/3 of the way to the answer on success (presuming 3 scenes for a question), then we play through it. If it's going to get them a lot less than that, just RP it out quickly.



To me, that is not a problem - but I am trying to figure out if it is a problem for others and how to avoid it. I can see how some GMs might think "you want to resolve that question but then you go there? that isn't going to cut it... I better railroad you to the 'correct' location".

The primary problem here, I think, is having a 'correct' location, or even approach to the problem. For this type of game to work, you have to create a general problem, with antagonist NPCs, and let them bounce off of each other. If you know that the players must do X, Y, and then Z, then it's really a railroad, even if you're just obscuring where the next train station is.


Well, I have played with GMs who typically would not let me choose scenes myself because it didn't fit into their view of "what would progress the story". And going with the question you put, "will Frida discover the opposition's identity before they discover hers?", I can see that it is possible that a player would attempt to answer it in a way that would generate a scene that you, as a GM, would immediately know isn't going to swing it either way. My question is what to do with those scenes?

Gloss over it quickly. You know the answer, give it. I can give more specifics of how I'd approach that if you have a specific example.


I guess that is a matter of people having different ideas of what the story should be. Still, it's a potential conflict, and I'm looking for GMing techniques that can help resolve the issue.

As a GM, I don't have an idea of what the story 'should' be. I have an idea of what the NPCs are planning, what they'll do, and what their goals are. I'm as interested to see how it resolves as anyone!


Some things are so intuitively true that proving them mathematically is a waste of time. It's interesting that even illusory agency requires improvisation though. I agree, but it might not be as obvious.

Yeah, the improvisation switches from "they want to do <xyz>, how do I make a scene out of it, and how do I adjust the world when they're done" to "they want to do <xyz>, how do I resolve that in a way that puts them where I want them to be?"


Ah, I see. To go back to your previous post, it seems you want the scenes to be about something, to have a purpose. Also, you want the outcome of each scene to shape all future scenes to come - that they're all important one way or another. Each one should "stand on its own" in a way.

More to the point that if a scene is going to be... "mechanically interesting", then it should be a question to be answered, not a challenge to be overcome. "You must get through the door" is, to me, kind of boring. "Can you get through the door, or do you have to force your way through and alert the guards?" is more interesting. "Can you sneak in the building to get the MacGuffin, or will you have to try to steal it en-route" is more interesting.


However, for the question posed by MrSandman, is it possible for a scene to have two questions? That is, "does Frida learn the identity of the opposition?" and "does the opposition learn about Frida?". That way, both could be answered with yes or no in any combination. Would that be acceptable for your style preference?

I think that's fine. Usually that comes about from more of a "success vs. success at a cost" kind of situation vs having two orthogonal questions, but having two doesn't bug me.


I would like to note that I think a large part of my games are set up like that; without having the terminology or making the questions explicit. However, since we talking about GM techniques; what are some good ways to make this type of game happen in your view? For example, is it beneficial to actually state these questions out loud before each scene and what is the potential drawback of that?

I think it's often useful. I've asked players "okay, so what are you trying to accomplish here? If this goes as well as possible, what do you get?" Clarifying stakes is useful because then, as a GM, I can make sure that I give players what they want when they succeed (if it's possible, of course). Clarifying the negative side of stakes is often useful because it can then inform players as to how important success is, and properly set tension.


Another thing I wonder about is how you view "story questions" that are mostly about a character's internal growth. For example, is a scene about "will Arthur find a way to deal with his grief about failing to save the young girl in time?" okay to you?

Sure, if it's that type of game and if the players think that's interesting. I've run scenes about whether a son would get his father's acceptance or not.


Easy solution then! Move to Sweden. 5-6 weeks of paid vacation. Plenty of time for roleplaying!

I'll take it under consideration ;)

Lorsa
2019-06-05, 07:27 AM
I'm sorry kyoryu. I had spent about half an hour writing a reply, had a few comments left and then went for lunch. When I got back I realized I had to restart my computer and forgot to post the reply... I'll have to re-write it again at some later time.

Lorsa
2019-06-05, 09:57 AM
Let's see if I can write this quicker than last time. Maybe I'll skip a point or two.

Otherwise I would love to get back on linking playstyle with GM techniques. For example, what is required to create the type of immersion Max_killjoy is often talking about?

I'll also have to write another post directed at Quertus I think, as I believe I left something unanswered.



Potentially? In practice, I like to figure out what the potential stakes are, and make sure that something will happen. If Frida can't find out the answer at the tavern (or even get good info), then I'll probably just RP through the scene quickly and get on with it. However, it's good practice to presume that the plans of your players are reasonable ones - I mean, if they're playing in good faith, then they think they're reasonable!

This ties into the orthogonal questions I talked about earlier. Perhaps Frida can't find the answers at the tavern, but it's possible that while looking for answers, she'll tip her hand and the opposition will learn about her.

What I would do personally, and I write this so you can judge my GMing style, is to have a scene where I let Frida talk to a patron or two. This is so I can get a feel of her approach and how likely it is her opposition would find out about her asking questions. Then I'd resolve the rest of the scene with some form of gather information / social roll, and let Frida's player know what she learnt. The amount of information would depend on the success of the roll, where a low roll would give only a few generic information bits, and a higher roll a lot more.

Mind you, the information in this case would have nothing to do with her opposition (at least not at first glance), and would range from common gossip to more juicy stuff - which could even act as plot hooks for other adventures. I try to make sure that every scene which takes up "screen-time" will give a result which is at least interesting.

Then it's up to Frida's player to decide what to do next. Either end the scene or extend it by having a more in-depth conversation with a patron that gave her some information that she is particularly interested in. After that, it's again up to her if she wants to proceed to find out more about her opposition, or take off in a tangent (say a side-quest if you will) based on any information given at the tavern.



There totally could be. Which just means that an individual scene may not actually have that question. A few techniques to deal with this:


Break it down into sub-problems/requirements to meet (this works best if the requirements really are requirements, like the demon banishing above)
Find a question for each scene, and play through them naturalistically (this has the issue that it can make things take reallllly long
I've been playing with the idea of setting a number of scenes to answer larger questions, and trying to hold to that - if the players do something that would get them 1/3 of the way to the answer on success (presuming 3 scenes for a question), then we play through it. If it's going to get them a lot less than that, just RP it out quickly.


So, for option 3, does that involve that after three scenes, if they haven't resolved the question they get the negative outcome (adverse consequence or whatever)? Or can it be like you play through five scenes, with each one having the possibility of getting them 1/3rd of the way if they succeed?

I could read the both ways so that's why I ask.


T
he primary problem here, I think, is having a 'correct' location, or even approach to the problem. For this type of game to work, you have to create a general problem, with antagonist NPCs, and let them bounce off of each other. If you know that the players must do X, Y, and then Z, then it's really a railroad, even if you're just obscuring where the next train station is.

Well, yeah, that's true. However, I think I wanted to point out that even if the GM hasn't planned for the players to go to XYZ, they could still know that PQR is NOT going to get them what they want and thus steer them away from that. And I could see someone reading your "I want the game to be about story" and think that's what they should do.



Gloss over it quickly. You know the answer, give it. I can give more specifics of how I'd approach that if you have a specific example.

I'll try to think of one for you. :smallsmile:



As a GM, I don't have an idea of what the story 'should' be. I have an idea of what the NPCs are planning, what they'll do, and what their goals are. I'm as interested to see how it resolves as anyone!

Same here!

Although what I believe I was talking about was the situation where two players have different ideas of which story question they want answered.



More to the point that if a scene is going to be... "mechanically interesting", then it should be a question to be answered, not a challenge to be overcome. "You must get through the door" is, to me, kind of boring. "Can you get through the door, or do you have to force your way through and alert the guards?" is more interesting. "Can you sneak in the building to get the MacGuffin, or will you have to try to steal it en-route" is more interesting.

I will be a bit nit-picky, but it's in good faith so please bear with me.

Isn't the difference between a challenge and a question to be answered just a semantic one? I mean, if getting through the door has no time limit and which method you use is irrelevant, then it's not really a challenge to begin with. It might be a type of "computer-game" challenge, but it hardly sounds like a RPG challenge to me.

"Can you get through the door without alerting the guards?" is both a question and a challenge, is it not? Similarly "can you get your hands on the MacGuffin inside the building?" is also a challenge.

At what level of abstraction will your story questions diverge from challenges? And how does the difference affect play?

As a sidenote, from what I've said earlier in threads, I guess you know I prefer the type of loose, open-ended "problem-situations" like "there's a MacGuffin you need inside that house" and then see what the players do with that rather than planning any specific solution.

I guess we could view the door more as an obstacle than a challenge in this scenario?



I think it's often useful. I've asked players "okay, so what are you trying to accomplish here? If this goes as well as possible, what do you get?" Clarifying stakes is useful because then, as a GM, I can make sure that I give players what they want when they succeed (if it's possible, of course). Clarifying the negative side of stakes is often useful because it can then inform players as to how important success is, and properly set tension.

I often also ask players what they try to accomplish. I'm not quite as good with clarifying the negative side of stakes though. On a few occasions, I have, but it's not something I do all the time. Usually, the players have felt the negative consequences during failure to be quite natural, given the situation. I do know that this can be a bit of a problem when player-GM expectations of negative outcomes don't quite match.



Sure, if it's that type of game and if the players think that's interesting. I've run scenes about whether a son would get his father's acceptance or not.

I know it's quite irrelevant to the larger discussion, but I've found that as a player, I've often found that to be interesting (and felt unhappy when such "internal stories" were denied me). It shouldn't be the main focus of play, but exploring the character's story is part of what I enjoy while playing.



I'll take it under consideration ;)

Internet has its upsides, but time-zones are a mess.

I would like to see how a game is played when these type of story questions were a bit more explicit, and how a "narrative" system like Fate runs in practice.

----------

There's another question, now that I've learnt a bit more about your preferences. What are the main differences with the way you talk about "game focused on story" and how AMFV talks about "game focused on story"? How can one differentiate between the two and do you think there are people who like "games with a good story" that has a preference for participationism?

Quertus
2019-06-05, 12:21 PM
What I would do personally, and I write this so you can judge my GMing style, is to have a scene where I let Frida talk to a patron or two. This is so I can get a feel of her approach and how likely it is her opposition would find out about her asking questions. Then I'd resolve the rest of the scene with some form of gather information / social roll, and let Frida's player know what she learnt. The amount of information would depend on the success of the roll, where a low roll would give only a few generic information bits, and a higher roll a lot more.

Mind you, the information in this case would have nothing to do with her opposition (at least not at first glance), and would range from common gossip to more juicy stuff - which could even act as plot hooks for other adventures. I try to make sure that every scene which takes up "screen-time" will give a result which is at least interesting.

Then it's up to Frida's player to decide what to do next. Either end the scene or extend it by having a more in-depth conversation with a patron that gave her some information that she is particularly interested in. After that, it's again up to her if she wants to proceed to find out more about her opposition, or take off in a tangent (say a side-quest if you will) based on any information given at the tavern.

This is *almost* both what I do, and what I want. I'd explicitly add that, for me, the purpose of the specificity is not limited to the one specific story question - the extras that you give from the roll can also trigger on the specifics of the route chosen.

My question is, is there a gaming style where that would be disadvantageous?

Psyren
2019-06-05, 03:27 PM
I'll start, as I often do in game design/GM technique threads, by linking a relevant Extra Credits video. This one is directly based on the MDA framework and the 8 core aesthetics.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA

So to sum that up, I'll repeat the 8 aesthetics from the OP (plus the 1 new one from the video), and articulate the ones I try to deliver on as a GM based on what the genre enables. My GMing experience is limited to D&D and its ilk, so other games may push different aesthetics, but I don't know enough about them to judge either way.

1. Sensation / Sense-Pleasure (No)
2. Fantasy / Make-Believe (Yes)
3. Narrative / Drama (Sort of)
4. Challenge / Obstacle Course (Yes)
5. Fellowship / Social (Yes)
6. Competition / Dominance (NEW, No)
7. Discovery / Uncharted Territory (Sort of)
8, Expression / Self-Discovery
9. Submission Abnegation / Pastime (No)

(Blue = Yes, Purple = Sort of, Red = No)

For Sensation - while my game books (especially PF) contain some pretty sweet art, and everyone I know loves the clacking sound of lots of dice rolling in unison, that's not what I'd call a core aesthetic of a TTRPG. We can play just fine using M&Ms or squiggles to represent monsters, nearly any random number generation technique, and the maps don't need a lot of fidelity either as long as some semblance of a grid is available.

Fantasy - TTRPGs, especially crunchy ones, excel at this. If I want to be a silver-tongued scoundrel, the dice make me good at it, even if I the player can't think of what to say. Same for being a super-genius, ultra-pious, or have a titanic physique.

Narrative - TTRPGs CAN be very good at this, but it's not easy. Their multiplayer nature means any narrative you craft has to be decently if not equally engaging for everyone at the table to really land this one, and I've found that's often not the case. More often, several if not most of the players don't care much for the plot or characters (our groups have a lot of NPC nicknaming or fudging story details) and are here more to have fun with their friends and express themselves. It's so unimportant in fact, that an entire business model of the hobby is selling premade stories that you can drop a number of different character concepts into or reskin to fit various settings. So I'd put this at a sort of/maybe.

Challenge - Crunchy TTRPGs, especially the ones that use modules, are great at this. The fewer subjective elements there are, the clearer the benchmark for challenge, and thus the more rewarding it is when that challenge is overcome. You'll know you build your T3 character "right" when it beat the same module as your T1 for example.

Fellowship - All TTRPGs deliver on this like no other, and D&D is no exception. Not much else to say.

Competition - this is a valid gaming aesthetic, but TTRPGs - well, D&D anyway - are not the best suited to deliver on it. These games just don't do PvP or spotlights well.

Discovery - There are definitely elements of this in crunchy RPGs, but most of that happens outside of actually playing, and even outside of chargen unless you're doing that on your own time. The parts of this that occur in-game tend to fall more neatly into...

Expression - Resounding yes, crunchy RPGs give lots of avenues for this. Better yet, it goes beyond expressing yourself through your character's build and finding new building blocks to play with (the discovery piece), but it extends even to the moment to moment play - the decisions your character gets to make, the gear they wear, and the actions they get to take are all ways for you to put yourself in their shoes and roleplay.

Abnegation - I'd say no, it's very hard to disengage in D&D and not think about what you're doing when even the simplest enemies are controlled by an intelligence (the DM) and you don't have complete information. There are other games where you can tune out and just run down a checklist, D&D isn't really one of them. Even if you are running a very simple character that can repeat the same actions every round, chances are the character the group owes their success to is the one that can do more than that, so you're being actively encouraged not to do this even when you can. Even the very act of getting ready for a D&D session requires some mental engagement, as you have to mentally prepare for the session, possibly physically travel somewhere, etc.


TL;DR - The core aesthetics of D&D (and likely many other TTRPGs ) - Fantasy, Challenge, Fellowship, Expression - those are the four I try to emphasize above all others when I GM, and thereby best play to the strengths of the medium. The ones in purple I'll involve where they make sense (a strong narrative is nice if I have one in mind for example, but otherwise, a well-worn module full of tropes and clichés will do just fine), and the ones in red I won't even bother with - no PvP, no attempt at fancy visuals, and no mindless relaxing check-the-box activities either.

kyoryu
2019-06-05, 08:25 PM
This ties into the orthogonal questions I talked about earlier. Perhaps Frida can't find the answers at the tavern, but it's possible that while looking for answers, she'll tip her hand and the opposition will learn about her.

If the opposition can learn of her, then frankly it seems like she'd have some chance of learning something of the opposition - at least find a person to trail, etc.

If the players just put themselves in a bad position, then the story question is going to start revolving around getting themselves out of it. Immediate peril and the like.

In the tavern case I don't think I'd ever run a scenario where the players could get no progress, but might possibly create some kind of hidden problem down the right. That sounds fairly unfun.


What I would do personally, and I write this so you can judge my GMing style, is to have a scene where I let Frida talk to a patron or two. This is so I can get a feel of her approach and how likely it is her opposition would find out about her asking questions. Then I'd resolve the rest of the scene with some form of gather information / social roll, and let Frida's player know what she learnt. The amount of information would depend on the success of the roll, where a low roll would give only a few generic information bits, and a higher roll a lot more.

Yeah, if there's someone in the tavern, then how that scene develops can be fairly natural like that. That all seems reasonable. Try to get the feel for the approach, which informs success/failure, and go from there.


Mind you, the information in this case would have nothing to do with her opposition (at least not at first glance), and would range from common gossip to more juicy stuff - which could even act as plot hooks for other adventures. I try to make sure that every scene which takes up "screen-time" will give a result which is at least interesting.

Eh. I get enough plot hooks off of players failing rolls. I don't need to add additional random ones through rumors.

And, personally, I hate plot hooks. I do love me some plot grenades though!


Then it's up to Frida's player to decide what to do next. Either end the scene or extend it by having a more in-depth conversation with a patron that gave her some information that she is particularly interested in. After that, it's again up to her if she wants to proceed to find out more about her opposition, or take off in a tangent (say a side-quest if you will) based on any information given at the tavern.

That all seems fairly reasonable. Though I'd be more likely to cut through a lot of that and get to the part where she's talking to the person that could actually help her. Any "side quest" would be a natural result of trying to get the info.


So, for option 3, does that involve that after three scenes, if they haven't resolved the question they get the negative outcome (adverse consequence or whatever)? Or can it be like you play through five scenes, with each one having the possibility of getting them 1/3rd of the way if they succeed?

More like three scenes, and how many of them they "succeed" at will determine the overal tenor of the result. Succeed at all three, and you get the info without getting tracked. Succeed at two of them, you get the info, but have left something of a trail. Succeed at one, and maybe you have the info but you have definitely aroused the ire of the opponents, and fail everything and the story is probably progressing due to you actively being hunted and having to deal with that.


Well, yeah, that's true. However, I think I wanted to point out that even if the GM hasn't planned for the players to go to XYZ, they could still know that PQR is NOT going to get them what they want and thus steer them away from that. And I could see someone reading your "I want the game to be about story" and think that's what they should do.

In general, if the players are trying to do something that makes any kind of sense, I try to find a way to make it so that it does make sense or can make sense, even if it's not something I thought of. Assuming the players are acting in good faith, that seems like a reasonable starting place.


I'll try to think of one for you. :smallsmile:

Awesome! Actual examples are easier to get concrete about than abstract concepts.


Although what I believe I was talking about was the situation where two players have different ideas of which story question they want answered.

"What are you trying to accomplish here?" is usually a good way to get to the bottom of that. I mean, the story question is not a thing that exists as this abstract concept floating in space - ultimately, the characters are doing things, and that's what's happening. So if they're trying to do things aimed at different goals, that's no different than any other way of running a game.


Isn't the difference between a challenge and a question to be answered just a semantic one? I mean, if getting through the door has no time limit and which method you use is irrelevant, then it's not really a challenge to begin with. It might be a type of "computer-game" challenge, but it hardly sounds like a RPG challenge to me.

"Can you get through the door without alerting the guards?" is both a question and a challenge, is it not? Similarly "can you get your hands on the MacGuffin inside the building?" is also a challenge.

At what level of abstraction will your story questions diverge from challenges? And how does the difference affect play?

With enough deconstruction, everything looks alike.

And, yes, there's usually some kind of "challenge" involved. The differences are:

1) For me, I run the scene explicitly with at least two ways it could go. Most "challenges" can be rephrased as "the players MUST do this".

2) A challenge is essentially a puzzle to be overcome, as such, with good design, the players should be able to overcome every challenge. If you're seeing "can you do this" the answer should be "yes, if you're good enough". With a question, a good question always has a reasonable chance of failure - this can be seen explicitly in a game like Fate where you have resources such that you can succeed at any scene, but are unlikely to succeed at all scenes.

3) in a 'scene as question' setup, the primary interest is from the question the scene is answering. In a 'scene as challenge' setup, the primary interest is in overcoming the challenge.


As a sidenote, from what I've said earlier in threads, I guess you know I prefer the type of loose, open-ended "problem-situations" like "there's a MacGuffin you need inside that house" and then see what the players do with that rather than planning any specific solution.

likewise.


I guess we could view the door more as an obstacle than a challenge in this scenario?

I'd say so. When approaching the door, I'd turn that into a story question anyway - story questions don't have to be big huge overarching questions, they can be very small and tight. "Do they open the door before the police show up?" is a story question.


I often also ask players what they try to accomplish. I'm not quite as good with clarifying the negative side of stakes though. On a few occasions, I have, but it's not something I do all the time. Usually, the players have felt the negative consequences during failure to be quite natural, given the situation. I do know that this can be a bit of a problem when player-GM expectations of negative outcomes don't quite match.

I don't think clarifying the negative outcome is always required, depending on the table. When it's something that can be understood by the characters, I don't think it's bad to call it out.

You can also let the players choose their own failure. "Okay, it's taking a while to rummage through the room looking for the info - you can hear sirens in the distance. You're pretty sure if you leave now you can get out without trouble, but there's also not much left in the room to search. If you stay you're pretty sure you'll finish the search, but you won't make a clean getaway". In this case I'm offering the players a choice on their failure - exit without the info, or get the info but deal with the police. And doing so in a way that is still in character.


I know it's quite irrelevant to the larger discussion, but I've found that as a player, I've often found that to be interesting (and felt unhappy when such "internal stories" were denied me). It shouldn't be the main focus of play, but exploring the character's story is part of what I enjoy while playing.

What is interesting and relevant to the characters and players is interesting and relevant to the game. That seems self-evident.


There's another question, now that I've learnt a bit more about your preferences. What are the main differences with the way you talk about "game focused on story" and how AMFV talks about "game focused on story"? How can one differentiate between the two and do you think there are people who like "games with a good story" that has a preference for participationism?

Story as "things that are happening, that are about dramatic questions, and finding out what happens" vs. story as "a story someone made up, and being told what happens."


This is *almost* both what I do, and what I want. I'd explicitly add that, for me, the purpose of the specificity is not limited to the one specific story question - the extras that you give from the roll can also trigger on the specifics of the route chosen.

Clearly. Think of it as me saying that a hot fudge sundae has to include ice cream and hot fudge - that doesn't mean it can't have other things!


My question is, is there a gaming style where that would be disadvantageous?

A game where there really are no story "questions", where the scenes exist mostly as a way to exercise the various mechanics of the system, and where there's an expectation that the players should be able to 'win' all the scenes if they play well. There's not a lot of use for story questions in that kind of setup.

Pleh
2019-06-06, 12:48 PM
Discovery - There are definitely elements of this in crunchy RPGs, but most of that happens outside of actually playing, and even outside of chargen unless you're doing that on your own time. The parts of this that occur in-game tend to fall more neatly into...

Seems like you're limiting the Discovery aesthetic to discovering system mastery or discovering a unique build.

But I think there's a lot of Discovery in exploring a DM's (or a published module's) map, figuring things out as you go. It's not that different from map based video games that use Discovery.

Also, it's less my style, but I've heard lots of people around here say they DM to be surprised by their players. Discovery seems a much stronger element of TTRPGs than you give it credit.

Now, it will depend somewhat on the table how much this aesthetic is used, but you could say the very use of dice is a discovery aesthetic ("let's see what lady fate has to say about this...")

Psyren
2019-06-06, 01:16 PM
But I think there's a lot of Discovery in exploring a DM's (or a published module's) map, figuring things out as you go. It's not that different from map based video games that use Discovery.

Also, it's less my style, but I've heard lots of people around here say they DM to be surprised by their players. Discovery seems a much stronger element of TTRPGs than you give it credit.

Now, it will depend somewhat on the table how much this aesthetic is used, but you could say the very use of dice is a discovery aesthetic ("let's see what lady fate has to say about this...")

You're correct that it can be a core aesthetic in theory (hence my putting it in purple), but I don't really consider it to be one in practice. At least at the tables I play at, maybe one or two players are actually invested in the world. The rest are murderhobos (regardless of alignment) who only care about the world insofar as it produces relevant challenges for them to test their builds against. It's the same hesitance I have with Narrative as a core aesthetic; indeed, I'd wager that most D&D groups don't care if they're running a custom world or a pre-baked module, even one they've run before.

There are definitely more narrative TTRPGs where these two elements are stronger, but in D&D I just don't see it. Or at the very least, I see far more tales of murderhobo PCs (both with my own eyes and anecdotally) than I do PCs that really care about the political situation in Cormyr or the plight of Evermeet's elves or whatnot.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-06, 01:22 PM
You're correct that it can be a core aesthetic in theory (hence my putting it in purple), but I don't really consider it to be one in practice. At least at the tables I play at, maybe one or two players are actually invested in the world. The rest are murderhobos (regardless of alignment) who only care about the world insofar as it produces relevant challenges for them to test their builds against. It's the same hesitance I have with Narrative as a core aesthetic; indeed, I'd wager that most D&D groups don't care if they're running a custom world or a pre-baked module, even one they've run before.

There are definitely more narrative TTRPGs where these two elements are stronger, but in D&D I just don't see it. Or at the very least, I see far more tales of murderhobo PCs (both with my own eyes and anecdotally) than I do PCs that really care about the political situation in Cormyr or the plight of Evermeet's elves or whatnot.

Funny...I don't think I've had a single PC in any of my games (as DM) who didn't care about the world, and I haven't had any who cared about "relevant challenges". So YMMV. I think it totally depends on the DM's presentation of events and how they build things. I run a persistent world with the express guarantee that the things they do will have lasting effects. Their old characters, now retired, are NPCs, as are those of other groups. And they depend on that and care a lot about the world.

I have had a campaign that I had initiated as a "Explore/loot the ruined city while destroying/avoiding threats" model turn into "build an alliance to retake and rebuild the city campaign. Where the PCs turned down loot in favor of helping people get settled, where they threaded the political winds to get disparate groups to work together. All unprompted--I had initially thought that the various groups would be irreconcilable, but they found a plausible way and did the leg work.

Psyren
2019-06-06, 08:37 PM
Funny...I don't think I've had a single PC in any of my games (as DM) who didn't care about the world, and I haven't had any who cared about "relevant challenges". So YMMV. I think it totally depends on the DM's presentation of events and how they build things. I run a persistent world with the express guarantee that the things they do will have lasting effects. Their old characters, now retired, are NPCs, as are those of other groups. And they depend on that and care a lot about the world.

I have had a campaign that I had initiated as a "Explore/loot the ruined city while destroying/avoiding threats" model turn into "build an alliance to retake and rebuild the city campaign. Where the PCs turned down loot in favor of helping people get settled, where they threaded the political winds to get disparate groups to work together. All unprompted--I had initially thought that the various groups would be irreconcilable, but they found a plausible way and did the leg work.

I'm not trying to invalidate anyone else's experiences, just presenting my perspective. And judging from the fact that there is another murderhobo thread on the front page of the sub right now, I don't think I'm alone. (Not saying you are, of course.)

RedWarlock
2019-06-06, 08:42 PM
I think that might more speak to the fact that player styles tend to run in packs. Murderhobo players clump together, as do story-centric players.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-06, 09:20 PM
I think that might more speak to the fact that player styles tend to run in packs. Murderhobo players clump together, as do story-centric players.

Right. I play almost exclusively with new people, either my colleagues, friends, or my students (high school club). So I can select for those unlikely to murder-hobo. My main point was that you can't simply say that "D&D doesn't do Discovery well" when it manifestly does. Certain groups/people don't do Discovery, but the system is fine with it. And in fact, 5e doesn't really do the loot part of the kill-loot-power loop. Without magic item marts and with gold not really being useful for lots once you have basic mundane gear...

As in I was their first DM for all but one of the players I've had for a significant period of time.

Lorsa
2019-06-07, 05:06 AM
I know this is very late Quertus, and I apologize. I realize I haven't replied to you in proper time as I should, and it's not nice to just leave a conversation abruptly.



Ah. To me, role-playing an existing NPC is a much different beast from creating or modifying an NPC on the fly.

I mean, for that matter, I've never seen a player be handed a scrip to read from, so that level of "improv" that is inherent to role-playing didn't seem, to me, worth making a distinction for, unless we're including war games or similar, where the PCs actions could conceivably be scripted.

You are right, they are different, but at least to some degree of abstraction, they both require improvisation. Which is why when you categorically denounce improv, I brought it up.

And I know it's another thread, but what it is that makes you so adverse to creating or modifying NPCs on the fly? I can understand it if you don't feel comfortable doing so as a GM, but why dislike it as a player? I know we touched on the issue of "it creates inconsistencies as noone remembers the details but me". However, that can easily be solved by writing down the stuff once it's been added.

The difference between improvisation and preparation is really a matter of time, nothing else. When is the decision being made or the content being created? Before the game session or during? So what is the major problem with making decisions regarding, say, world-building during a session?




Wow. Accusations of deliberate clarity omission? That's a first. You really don't pull your punches, do you?

I guess I was a bit frustrated, and I wasn't sure of what your goal was. It seems like your point was "certain descriptions of these aesthetics make it hard for me to place my preferences within either category"?

To which I'd say, don't confuse the description of a concept with the concept itself. Some people describe them poorly or only bring up one type of example of something that would fit within it. It's possible to say "I am attracted by the discovery aesthetic, but only certain kinds of discovery is interesting". I mean, I like the fantasy aesthetic, but I don't want to play Goatherder: the RPG, no matter how well it was written to make me feel like a true bronze age goatherder.

Ideally, it's best to describe our preferences in more detailed and nuanced ways. But we humans like to abstract things; thus the aesthetic model. However, with all such concepts, it can be hard to find a shared understanding of them. Anyway, 'nuff of that.



I was pulling from the descriptions the Angry GM gave of these aesthetics, as the linked article seemed a bit spartan. Clearly, you disagree with him. Shrug. I disagree with him most of the time myself.

He has some good points, sometimes. The whole point of that article is really "figure out what your players like and give them that". Which is, all in all, pretty good advice.



As to my end goal… immortality, a good woman to share it with, and to live "truly madly deeply" rather than "Painters".

If you figure out a way to reach the immortality part, please let me know. I've realized too late I shouldn't gone into biochemistry instead, so I could solve this nasty aging-and-dying problem.



But for this thread? Eh, I wasn't sure, but I didn't believe in the premise, so… to poke at it with a stick, hoping other Playgrounders would join the thread? Some have, and it seems that the premise has been brought into question, and changed. Cool. So, now I'll test that out, to see how it fares.

It's fine to attack the premise. However, I still think it's a good idea to try to develop an understanding of how different gaming preferences require different things from the GM. So, what does the GM have to do for your preferences, and what things are actively detrimental to your enjoyment?




Emotion? This sounds promising. Except… I'm not sure… and even my guesses are "it varies".

When I hear about an adventure, I often find myself thinking, "what would *we* have done in that scenario?". Which sounds to me like Fellowship x Expression.

During the game… I think that, these days, I'm too busy "metagaming like a mother****ing dolphin" (itself "fellowship"?) to feel much. Back when I was more immersed, I primarily enjoyed the feel of the character, things that both involved and merited significant thought, and… moments. Like, that moment when you learn that Samus is a girl, or the moment you realize "we waded through them like they were humans" would make a great party slogan.

When I hear a pitch, I feel "oh, Quertus would love it there!"

After the fact, I remember stories. Not "the story", but stories like, "I had this one GM who, halfway through the first session, I could accurately predict how many and which PCs would still be conscious at the end of the climactic final battle against the BBEG, because that's what he would believe would make for the 'best' story". Or the backwards party that surrendered to the (monstrous) authorities, and later allied with the intended BBEG. Or the time that the party paladin made a powerful demon believe my Wizard was Uber epic level (and I was clueless what was going on until well after the fact). Or the Monk who solo'd encounters that, for most parties, would spell TPK. Or "and then there was the time that Armus looted his own dead body".

What has brought on this heavy focus on metagaming? And doesn't that also bring you some sort of emotions? Or why do you do it?

Did you enjoy when you were more immersed and (perhaps) felt more emotions in the game? Is that something you could like to bring back and if so, how do you think a GM would do it?




Well, my classic descriptor for my characters is, "they're not from around here", so I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

Until the day an evil GM teleports your entire party to your character's home town. Then you'd have to go "I'm not from around here.... eh wait a minute... oh ****!". :smallbiggrin:



Because Angry said so.

So you let Angry be your main source of how to understand the concepts? It's possible he is right, but it's also possible he misses a bit of point...

In any case we can just forget about the 8 (or 9) AS if you don't think they're good descriptors for you.



Brilliant advice. I'll propose "R1" - "changing game physics or facts to cause or prevent an outcome". Really handy if you want to protect your plot-critical DMPC from a determined party, or to prevent a random TPK; ridiculous in the context of a war game.

Good proposition! Do you have any more stuff? Perhaps something that is actually beneficial for your style?

Quertus
2019-06-09, 08:08 AM
Wow, what a post! I'll just start with the things that seem most important of the ones I can answer quickly, because… well, because of my answer below.


I know this is very late Quertus, and I apologize. I realize I haven't replied to you in proper time as I should, and it's not nice to just leave a conversation abruptly.

I'm not dead yet, so you're not late. :smalltongue:

That said, I know that I've moved from "absent-minded" to what I have to call "senile", know that I've found old threads - including one I've created - that I've simply forgotten about in mid conversation. :smallredface:

So, uh, apologies to the Playground for that. Understand that, despite my best efforts, it will happen again.


And I know it's another thread, but what it is that makes you so adverse to creating or modifying NPCs on the fly? I can understand it if you don't feel comfortable doing so as a GM,

The way I craft the game, everything is connected. I start with the world, and, as I zoom in, I start with the connections.

That probably doesn't make much sense. Let me try to improv a change to one of my worlds… suppose, "50 years from now", Bleusenberg has a suburbs (an almost completely and utterly incoherent proposition, btw). OK, ****, what changed? What is the relationship of the suburbs to the city? Other cities? Traveling merchants? Adventures? The State? What is the general tenor of the suburbs? How would it shape the liver of those there?

So, maybe they're refugees from the past, protected from a temporal hiccup by a brilliant epic spell. The State did not simply quietly exterminate them because it saw value both in researching this anomaly, and in obtaining the expertise of the epic caster who executed his people's salvation.

The State has refused to integrate them to maintain its own temporal stability, hoping that isolating them outside the safety of the walls will insulate The State from potential temporal backlash, and that invaders will eventually remove this problem.

Publicly, though, The State welcomes the refugees, has built them very nice accommodations (possibly better than they are accustomed to), and has numerous powerful Wizards (including their Savior) maintaining a series of wards customized to their needs.

Their "suburbs" is restricted to an area between two main roads, so that they have minimal impact on The State. The refugees have been instilled with a (perhaps false) sense of safety within their wards, and a sense of fear of the area outside, so there is no need for laws to keep them in place. These emotions have been heightened by the fact that Death has walked their streets, and on several occasions has shown an active interest in their wards (confirming the suspicions of some scholars that Death is well versed in magic).

OK. So someone from the suburbs… ****, when and where did they hail from originally? What was their culture and myths? Their social structure? How have "recent" events impacted that?

Wait, what is/was the relationship of the epic savior to the refugees? How does this answer impact…

-----

I don't just make "a beggar in the streets". I understand how they are connected to their world.


but why dislike it as a player? I know we touched on the issue of "it creates inconsistencies as noone remembers the details but me". However, that can easily be solved by writing down the stuff once it's been added.

You're looking at it from the wrong side - something created on the fly may *already* be inconsistent. You just created a 1-armed beggar… when there's a priest in town who would Regenerate it? You just created a goblin… inside the radius of our Genocide spell? You just created a half-dragon… born after the last of that color in this area of reproductive age left / was slain?

Time and again, I've seen GMs botch when they didn't think things through.


It's fine to attack the premise. However, I still think it's a good idea to try to develop an understanding of how different gaming preferences require different things from the GM. So, what does the GM have to do for your preferences, and what things are actively detrimental to your enjoyment?

Eh, I wasn't actually *sure* that the premise was wrong, so I wasn't actively attacking it. I was just poking at it, waiting for other Playgrounders to give their opinions.

Inconsistency is actively detrimental to my enjoyment. As are rails. As, likely, is linear / the illusion of thinking (ie, problems with only one solution).

One of the things most beneficial to my fun is handing me a huge, broad toolkit, and saying, "have fun".

So, my classic example: rocks that float through the air.

I want the GM to already know the underlying mechanics, and for that to be… hmmm… reasonably interfacable. I want to be able to research it, and utilize it. Maybe I use it to make Shoes of Water Walking, or super skipping stones, or juggling statues, or flying castles. I don't want to find that it's already been Explored, and is the home of the Flying Rock School of Martial Arts, the one and only possible use for this anomaly ever. :smallannoyed:

And I don't want the GM to hand me just this one tool. Much like the Rule of Three, I want to be handed *lots* of tools, of various types, like (where did I put that list? Oh, I put it earlier in this thread :smallredface:): An orcish invasion. A lonely Driad. Dungeon mummies who "just came in to get out of the rain". A kidnapped princess. An evil king and his noble vizier. Cabbage migrations. The elemental plane of taffy. Phoenix extinction. A new technique for ascension. Floating rocks. A Wizard war. An underwater portal to the elemental plane of taffy, with invisible, incorporeal guardians. Troll bridges viewed favorably. Sentient bats. Dragonfire legions. The library in the mirror realm. The source of freckles. Suicidal immortals. A beaten dog. An artifact ice cream truck. Contagious visions. A lake of gilding. Mass enslavement of Kaorti for their weapons. Pumpkin-headed zombies spontaneously appearing.

I want a world full of color and wonder, where we can write our own stories.


What has brought on this heavy focus on metagaming? And doesn't that also bring you some sort of emotions? Or why do you do it?

I don't actually remember. :smallredface:

I'm pretty sure it had a similar feel to the story I've stolen, about how nobody knew that Bob was deathly afraid of spiders until the huge spider mini hit the table.

So, now, I'm constantly trying to evaluating the potential impact of my actions on the fun of others, and constantly trying to read the table for impacts I hadn't predicted, rather than viewing "my guy" as the path to sainthood.


Did you enjoy when you were more immersed and (perhaps) felt more emotions in the game? Is that something you could like to bring back and if so, how do you think a GM would do it?

Absolutely more fun to just roleplay!

But, to go back to that? I would have to not care about hurting the fun of those at the table.

There's… not a lot of good answers for that.


Until the day an evil GM teleports your entire party to your character's home town. Then you'd have to go "I'm not from around here.... eh wait a minute... oh ****!". :smallbiggrin:

Don't make me make all my characters be orphans who come from destroyed villages! :smallwink:

Pleh
2019-06-09, 10:12 AM
Don't make me make all my characters be orphans who come from destroyed villages! :smallwink:

"What's this? The BBEG turns out to be your long lost brother who was the only other living survivor of your village's destruction! You thought you were the only survivor all this time!"

Or, to put an even heavier twist,

"This can't be. The village was utterly destroyed."

The orphanage administrator you watched die: "Oh, you didn't hear? A group of epic clerics came through and restored EVERYTHING! Isn't that GREAT!?"

Quertus
2019-06-09, 02:28 PM
Until the day an evil GM teleports your entire party to your character's home town. Then you'd have to go "I'm not from around here.... eh wait a minute... oh ****!". :smallbiggrin:


Don't make me make all my characters be orphans who come from destroyed villages! :smallwink:


"What's this? The BBEG turns out to be your long lost brother who was the only other living survivor of your village's destruction! You thought you were the only survivor all this time!"

Or, to put an even heavier twist,

"This can't be. The village was utterly destroyed."

The orphanage administrator you watched die: "Oh, you didn't hear? A group of epic clerics came through and restored EVERYTHING! Isn't that GREAT!?"

Well, you've got me there. :smalltongue:

OK, fine. To go with my more serious answer: as long as the GM lets every piece of content be run by its creator, it might work. Otherwise, expect I'll murder the whole village again, because, based on the way that the GM is role-playing them, they're clearly doppelgangers.

Pleh
2019-06-09, 02:58 PM
Well, you've got me there. :smalltongue:

OK, fine. To go with my more serious answer: as long as the GM lets every piece of content be run by its creator, it might work. Otherwise, expect I'll murder the whole village again, because, based on the way that the GM is role-playing them, they're clearly doppelgangers.

That's fair, but the other players at the table still have to be able to interact with content that's created, yes?

You wouldn't be much a fan of finding out that the BBEG's lair was plot armor impregnable, outthink the DM to find a way inside, only to get bait and switched with the old, "that was an illusory duplicate lair; your objective is in a different plot armored lair." Would you? "Interact with it in only the manner I allow" isn't a fun game for anyone.

Yes, the DM shouldn't hijack a PC's backstory, I agree. And the argument is valid that a content's creator should retain control of those elements. But clearly, that control can't be used to shut the other players out from interacting with those elements. The key seems to be in the art of sharing. Neither the DM nor the PC should dominate the PC's backstory exclusively. They should each be free to contribute.

I mean, unironically, our half hearted example is actually quite an interesting story by itself. An orphaned survivor of an eradicated village, struggling with the trauma of their childhood, has a psychotic break upon realizing decades later that the town was posthumously saved and brutally murders everyone all over again. It's practically an episode of The Twilight Zone. In the end, the original survivor was the only one who couldn't escape the trauma of what happened. This should be a valid game to play.

Quertus
2019-06-09, 04:58 PM
That's fair, but the other players at the table still have to be able to interact with content that's created, yes?

You wouldn't be much a fan of finding out that the BBEG's lair was plot armor impregnable, outthink the DM to find a way inside, only to get bait and switched with the old, "that was an illusory duplicate lair; your objective is in a different plot armored lair." Would you? "Interact with it in only the manner I allow" isn't a fun game for anyone.

Yes, the DM shouldn't hijack a PC's backstory, I agree. And the argument is valid that a content's creator should retain control of those elements. But clearly, that control can't be used to shut the other players out from interacting with those elements. The key seems to be in the art of sharing. Neither the DM nor the PC should dominate the PC's backstory exclusively. They should each be free to contribute.

I mean, unironically, our half hearted example is actually quite an interesting story by itself. An orphaned survivor of an eradicated village, struggling with the trauma of their childhood, has a psychotic break upon realizing decades later that the town was posthumously saved and brutally murders everyone all over again. It's practically an episode of The Twilight Zone. In the end, the original survivor was the only one who couldn't escape the trauma of what happened. This should be a valid game to play.

Perhaps. But it's not interesting to me as *the only story I get tell, ever*. :smallyuk: So my characters are "not from around here".

As to giving the other PCs the opportunity to interact with the content… so, not counting the Playgrounders you knew IRL before chatting with them, for how many of them have you met their mothers, had lunch with their old roommates, or toured their ancestral homestead? Do you feel that your interactions with them are significantly impaired on account of this omission?

Pleh
2019-06-09, 07:13 PM
As to giving the other PCs the opportunity to interact with the content… so, not counting the Playgrounders you knew IRL before chatting with them, for how many of them have you met their mothers, had lunch with their old roommates, or toured their ancestral homestead? Do you feel that your interactions with them are significantly impaired on account of this omission?

We aren't exactly adventuring together, are we?

If I was taking shifts with you to watch your back while you sleep, fighting potentially deadly combats by your side on a near daily basis, and typically having several hours of downtime alone together in dark places around a campfire, it seems more likely we'd eventually get to talking about where we came from and why we left. Is it truly so odd that a fantastic hero like a PC would never find themselves returning with their companions to their ancestral roots as part of some larger quest?

I'd be rather more surprised of heroes that journied together for any substantial length of time would not become more personally familiar with one another. I mean, some PCs rely on their connections with family to resolve quests.

Quertus
2019-06-09, 07:53 PM
We aren't exactly adventuring together, are we?

If I was taking shifts with you to watch your back while you sleep, fighting potentially deadly combats by your side on a near daily basis, and typically having several hours of downtime alone together in dark places around a campfire, it seems more likely we'd eventually get to talking about where we came from and why we left. Is it truly so odd that a fantastic hero like a PC would never find themselves returning with their companions to their ancestral roots as part of some larger quest?

I'd be rather more surprised of heroes that journied together for any substantial length of time would not become more personally familiar with one another. I mean, some PCs rely on their connections with family to resolve quests.

Shrug. I've had plenty of friends and co-workers who may as well have been Dragon born, and I've had others for whom family was a large part of who they were. Of (primarily) that second set, I've met only some of their families.

Curiously, none of my jobs have ever involved me returning home, so, no, I don't find it odd when the PCs' quests don't include impetus for them to return home.

Now, that's not to say that many characters wouldn't talk about their families / homes / upbringing at some point. And, even "not from around here", most of my characters could, and many would. However, for adventurers, it may be a touchy subject, given the number of orphans, former (or escaped) slaves, slave owners, and runaway princesses that the profession seems to attract. :smallamused: