I grow weary of these generic RPG conventions.

[mrpitchfork]

I was going to rant, but it was going nowhere and it was utterly pointless.

So here is the point:

Random elements are annoying and eliminate any complex strategy, and battle-based games get in the way of storytelling. It feels like there is an unecessary disconnect between battles and the story because of these random elements. They are literally unpredictable, so there are few good ways to deal with them if you want to tell a good story.

And I want to play a game with a good story. I want complex character interactions, interesting social dynamics, and I only want the battles to be directly relevant to the plot.

Now, how do we do this? This requires a group of decent, cooperative writers or a few good writers and some bad ones that the good writers can use or manipulate. This also requires a good set of freeform guidelines (besides normal roleplaying ethic), like how the magic works and how the host wants to handle battles and character interaction with NPC's.

Does anyone have good examples of this? Am I a raving lunatic or a pretentious butthead? Discuss!

[Piedmon_Sama]

Well, I did freeform roleplaying online from 2000 to 2005-ish, before I started regularly playing D&D with the same guys I used to do message board games with. So our group is all about "writing first." If you want to try playing online, I might suggest you visit some freeform boards and look around for good writers/storytellers who are interested in a deep story like you are. I'm sure there's still big communities for it out there somewhere.

[Optimystik]

I'm not sure I understand your contention. Games have to have random elements in order to be games... otherwise they just become a series of scripted events with no chance of failure or success on the part of the players.

I also feel that the most complex strategies are those that account for random chance.

[Doc Roc]

Try:
Dread
Jenga instead of dice.

OR

Amber Diceless
Does what it says

Also consider:

Mouseguard
Wonderful combat system, doesn't feel random in a bad way.

[mrpitchfork]

What I mean is, I want conflicts to be between players, and between players and NPC's. I would prefer conflicts not be between players and a simulationist system.

Games don't have to be random in order to be games. Unless Chess stopped being a game?

There's also LARPing among children (which most call make-believe, but really it's LARPing :P ), which has no true random elements, but it's still a game.

[gbprime]

I'm a big fan of character builds. Partly I do this to protect a game from powergaming munchkinry, but I also consider it an art to make the build be a road map of the character's history. The way the game system is set up with prerequisites for feats and classes, you HAVE to plan ahead. So make that plan tell a story, and make that story more important than raw power. You get the best of both worlds and keep both kinds of players happy.

That said, story is everything. Give every player a part, large for the roleplayers, small for the casual combat monsters. Make sure they can affect the course of that story with their actions instead of being swept along regardless. And get them emotionally involved. You you get them to care, they will react to triumph and tragedy as if they were there, and you'll unnerve them just as well as if they were watching a movie.

As Roger Zelazny said, the secret to good stories is making interesting characters... and then making them suffer.

[mrpitchfork]

I should also mention Physical Power and Narrative Power, and the difference between them.

Like how Superman is invincible but he's a horrible superhero, but Batman has no true superpowers but he's just too cool and has more narrative power than Superman. Or the difference between Pippin and the Watcher.

[Milskidasith]

What I mean is, I want conflicts to be between players, and between players and NPC's. I would prefer conflicts not be between players and a simulationist system.

Games don't have to be random in order to be games. Unless Chess stopped being a game?

There's also LARPing among children (which most call make-believe, but really it's LARPing :P ), which has no true random elements, but it's still a game.

Conflicts are between npcs and players even with the system. Predictability and a set story are not the key to a good story, nor is a good, convention following story a good rpg experience.

[Doc Roc]

I should also mention Physical Power and Narrative Power, and the difference between them.

Like how Superman is invincible but he's a horrible superhero, but Batman has no true superpowers but he's just too cool and has more narrative power than Superman. Or the difference between Pippin and the Watcher.

You might really enjoy Mouseguard, then. It has the free bonus of being one of the most beautiful RPG books ever printed.

[gbprime]

Heh. Superman is fine if everyone has that kind of power. But in a game where one person plays superman, one plays Lois Lane, and one plays Jimmy Olsen... that wrecks any game.

Narrative power has nothing to do with how many dice you're rolling. Nor should it. Stories are about emotion. Defeating your foes is emotional, but it is FAR from the only source of drama. Angst and failure are equally powerful and should be mixed in to any story. They make the final triumph that much more rewarding.

[mrpitchfork]

I never meant to say anything about a set, predictable story. I only attacked unpredictability in the context of battles. Unpredictability (obviously only to an extent) is part of storytelling. But it can ruin a ton of drama if Harry MacHero, the guy with the most Narrative Power, dies, not because it helps further the point of the story, but because of randomly-driven battle systems and a low hitpoint count on Harry MacHero's part.

Thank you for the suggestions, Doc. They may make for good reading.

[Private-Prinny]

I like the battle system as it is. In real life, unexpected things can and do happen. Rolls just happen to simulate that. A lucky hit here, an off-balance swing there, stuff happens.

Also, it is only unpredictable to a certain degree. As long as your idea of a complex strategy isn't "I'll move around and hit him, dealing 23 damage, which is enough for him to be killed by your 42 damage fireball after I do the hokey-pokey to move 5 ft. away" you should be fine. Part of building a good character is minimizing the risk factor.

[Raum]

And I want to play a game with a good story. I want complex character interactions, interesting social dynamics, and I only want the battles to be directly relevant to the plot.

Now, how do we do this? This requires a group of decent, cooperative writers or a few good writers and some bad ones that the good writers can use or manipulate. This also requires a good set of freeform guidelines (besides normal roleplaying ethic), like how the magic works and how the host wants to handle battles and character interaction with NPC's.

Does anyone have good examples of this? Am I a raving lunatic or a pretentious butthead? Discuss!

Wushu. Or, for more structure, Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE, or Risus.

Don't really see the impetus for a rant here. There are hundreds of games out there...find the ones which support the style you and your friends want to play! :)

[gbprime]

Death is never the end in a fantasy system. Plenty of opportunities exist to continue making life difficult for the PC after he stops breathing.

One of the principle characters in the last game I ran died to a massive critical in the desert. They hauled his body out and tried to raise him... only to find out that his spirit could not return. He was still in that desert, and he had watched them walk away with his body. He tried to follow, but could not cross the White River out of the desert. Then the Caliph's men found him, and took him as a slave. They were dead too, you see. The sands of Kzithrikan do not give up their dead.

At least not without a heck of an adventure when the PC's came back for him.

[SilveryCord]

Third mouse guard. People who think outside the box are rewarded directly and in quantified ways; it isn't overly reliant on DM involvement to inspire roleplaying, it just naturally includes it.

[Optimystik]

Games don't have to be random in order to be games. Unless Chess stopped being a game?

Perhaps we're operating off different definitions of "random." By random, I mean there are elements of the game that are outside of each player's control.

In Chess, you can perfectly control your own moves, as well as how you react to those of your opponent - but you cannot control the moves he makes.

If you know in advance everything he will do, then yes, it ceases to be a game and merely becomes a script.

[mrpitchfork]

I'm not even scratching the surface of worldbuilding. My qualms are with simulationism, which I feel is distracting and unnecessary. If I want to tell a story, say, protesting an aspect of society, I don't want to be hindered by a string of bad rolls in a simulationist system.

Silverycord, is that similar to Perversity Points in the sci-fi psychological thriller RPG Paranoia?

Perhaps we're operating off different definitions of "random." By random, I mean there are elements of the game that are outside of each player's control.

In Chess, you can perfectly control your own moves, as well as how you react to those of your opponent - but you cannot control the moves he makes.

If you know in advance everything he will do, then yes, it ceases to be a game and merely becomes a script.

I knew there must have been a misunderstanding. By "random" I meant more than elements outside the player's influence, I meant elements that were utterly unpredictable even through thought and knowledge, like the roll of a dice.

I'm totally fine with elements as you describe. However in this case, if you know in advance everything your opponent will do it is still a game. You are simply the puppeteer.

[Optimystik]

I knew there must have been a misunderstanding. By "random" I meant more than elements outside the player's influence, I meant elements that were utterly unpredictable even through thought and knowledge, like the roll of a dice.

I understand you now, but still think you're mistaken. While there are games where dice rolls are "utterly unpredictable even through thought and knowledge," D&D is not one of them.

D&D has a rather large number of mechanics that exert considerable control over dice rolls. Modifiers, auto-success, auto-fail, Take 10, Take 20, changing the size or number of die for a given act (such as dealing damage), empower, maximize etc. While the dice roll itself may be random, the result of that roll - what we the players care about as an end goal - very often is not, or can be restricted to a very manageable range.

For a complaint about randomness in D&D to be valid, it requires not actually utilizing the d20 system to its potential.

[Swordgleam]

I second the "just go freeform roleplay" motion. I started out with freeform, and so very many of the complaints I see about gaming systems are from people who want to freeform RP but don't realize that's what they want. Try it. It solves every problem you have. Then you can let the games be games and be happy about it.

[gbprime]

The randomness imposes a sense that failure is possible. Without that, the PC's generally know they're going to win, and suspending disbelief is harder. They must risk failure to feel good about success.

[valadil]

Randomness is a broad category to attack. I don't think it detracts from fight mechanics. I do think it's a terrible thing to use when picking a fight. Why use a random encounter when you can have a plotful encounter?

You can run a complex story in D&D. But it's harder than it needs to be. Not because other systems are more conducive to story but because D&D players are accustomed to a certain kind of game. It's usually easier to teach them a new system than to break their old habits and expectations.

Try playing a in a theatre style LARP (which is NOT the same as a boffer LARP - ie foam swords and bean bag lightning bolts). If you're on the east coast, the intercon events are usually pretty awesome. Many colleges and universities have LARP events too. They're usually free and almost entirely about PC on PC interaction and conflict.

[mrpitchfork]

Will just going freeform solve all my problems? Last time I was big on roleplaying it was all freeform, and in retrospect it was all battle-based despite it being freeform. Perhaps then my issue is not with roleplaying conventions but with bad writers?

gbprime, what I'm getting at is that conflict need not be based on battles or driven by dice.

valadil, I think you're right alot in your post. I still make the colon-forwardslash face at the idea of random battles (though I make the colon-closeparintheses face at the idea of nonrandom encounters), preferring story-driven ones. Story driven like the outcome of the battle is foreshadowing, or the physical outcome of parts of the battle reflect more subtle elements of character interaction.

Going back to my first post where I ask if I am a lunatic or if I am pretentious, I think I'd go with "pretentious".

A good resolution, then? Read This Book and That Book to get a better idea of player/plot dynamic, and find places where the writers are good?

[Agrippa]

So your basically saying that the designated hero should triumph due to his or her status as a hero, as opposed to becoming a hero due to their success. I prefer the latter. The great legendary heroes we think of are the ones who don't get killed off early in their careers. Don't think of an RPG campaign as a story with a predetermined end with all actions focused towards the same plot. Think of it instead as a series of seemingly unconnected events that may lead to a full fledged story, provided the hero to be survives long enough.

[Lost Wanderer]

Will just going freeform solve all my problems? Last time I was big on roleplaying it was all freeform, and in retrospect it was all battle-based despite it being freeform. Perhaps then my issue is not with roleplaying conventions but with bad writers?

There is an excellent chance this is true, especially if it was on the Internet you did this FFRP.

I still make the colon-forwardslash face at the idea of random battles (though I make the colon-closeparintheses face at the idea of nonrandom encounters),

Your initial post wasn't especially pretentious, but this phrasing sure is.

preferring story-driven ones. Story driven like the outcome of the battle is foreshadowing, or the physical outcome of parts of the battle reflect more subtle elements of character interaction.

A good resolution, then? Read This Book and That Book to get a better idea of player/plot dynamic, and find places where the writers are good?

You keep using the word "writers", as opposed to "players", so let me ask you this: in an RPG, is immersion (that is, the players really being in the shoes of the characters they portray; only able to act, as players, on character knowledge, generally not knowing things about the story their characters wouldn't, only able to influence the world in ways their characters could, etc.) a good thing, or a bad thing?

So your basically saying that the designated hero should triumph due to his or her status as a hero, as opposed to becoming a hero due to their success. I prefer the latter. The great legendary heroes we think of are the ones who don't get killed off early in their careers. Don't think of an RPG campaign as a story with a predetermined end with all actions focused towards the same plot. Think of it instead as a series of seemingly unconnected events that may lead to a full fledged story, provided the hero to be survives long enough.

I'd say he's perfectly entitled to think about an RPG story like that; rather, D&D isn't the kind of system to use to engage in what is sometimes called "collaborative storytelling", which is what it sounds like he wants.

[mrpitchfork]

So your basically saying that the designated hero should triumph due to his or her status as a hero, as opposed to becoming a hero due to their success. I prefer the latter. The great legendary heroes we think of are the ones who don't get killed off early in their careers. Don't think of an RPG campaign as a story with a predetermined end with all actions focused towards the same plot. Think of it instead as a series of seemingly unconnected events that may lead to a full fledged story, provided the hero to be survives long enough.

No, I'm not. I'm kinda saying the opposite. I'm fighting FOR artistic games, not against them.

What I'm saying, as I touched upon in a previous post, is that stories shouldn't just be, they should have a point (like protesting against a convention in society that the writer dislikes). The players exist to tell the story. Therefore, the players should help bring the story to a good conclusion.

This does not imply a scripted game. That is a total inference on your part based on putting words in my mouth :/

You keep using the word "writers", as opposed to "players", so let me ask you this: in an RPG, is immersion (that is, the players really being in the shoes of the characters they portray; only able to act, as players, on character knowledge, generally not knowing things about the story their characters wouldn't, only able to influence the world in ways their characters could, etc.) a good thing, or a bad thing?

When I say "writer" I do mean the GM, but now that I think about it that's entirely dependent on the GM-player relationship.

[Kris Strife]

Heh. Superman is fine if everyone has that kind of power. But in a game where one person plays superman, one plays Lois Lane, and one plays Jimmy Olsen... that wrecks any game.

Do you have any idea how often Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane had super powers in the classic comics? There's a reason why Superdickery has drinking games for each of them.

And Superman can have a very interesting narrative, its just that it takes more effort to write than Batman does. Just have Batman growl, say 'I'm Batman' and go on about how his parents died when he was young, all while beating up some nameless and faceless thugs, and you've made an acceptable Batman story. Not a good one mind you, but one that people will read and not complain about it too much.

[gbprime]

Do you have any idea how often Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane had super powers in the classic comics?

The classic comics are a blur, thanks to Curt Swan. He could take any scene and make it look like it was populated by statues instead of people. While I didn't like the way he was dismissed, it was good to see a more modern drawing style at last.

Threadjack. sorry.

[poisonoustea]

And I want to play a game with a good story. I want complex character interactions, interesting social dynamics, and I only want the battles to be directly relevant to the plot.

Random elements are annoying and eliminate any complex strategy, and battle-based games get in the way of storytelling.

Will just going freeform solve all my problems? Last time I was big on roleplaying it was all freeform, and in retrospect it was all battle-based despite it being freeform. Perhaps then my issue is not with roleplaying conventions but with bad writers?

I think you probably want to write a novel and not even a fantasy one; there's a fair deal of randomness into any fight, and the fantasy genre itself is mainly focused on battle.

What I'm saying, as I touched upon in a previous post, is that stories shouldn't just be, they should have a point (like protesting against a convention in society that the writer dislikes). The players exist to tell the story. Therefore, the players should help bring the story to a good conclusion.

That's the role of writers, not that of players. Pen-and-paper roleplaying is a game, you can't turn it into art. It would stop being a game. Start a collaborative writing project instead, it will do much much better and you'll accept D&D as nothing but a game. If it bores you that way, quit playing rpgs and start writing. You should search for satisfaction, no matter what you're leaving behind.

[Private-Prinny]

What I'm saying, as I touched upon in a previous post, is that stories shouldn't just be, they should have a point (like protesting against a convention in society that the writer dislikes). The players exist to tell the story. Therefore, the players should help bring the story to a good conclusion.

Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. The one thing I can see going awry, however, is that no matter what system you use, the players have to be willing to tell your story. If you don't have their cooperation, there are an infinite number of ways for your story to be derailed and shot to hell if they happen to disagree with the moral.

In my experience (not much, mind you), the DM exists to make a story from the player actions, the players don't exist to make actions according to the DM's story.

Good luck finding what works for you.

[mrpitchfork]

That's the role of writers, not that of players. Pen-and-paper roleplaying is a game, you can't turn it into art. It would stop being a game. Start a collaborative writing project instead, it will do much much better and you'll accept D&D as nothing but a game. If it bores you that way, quit playing rpgs and start writing. You should search for satisfaction, no matter what you're leaving behind.

Games are art, but I don't want to change the philosophy subject (oh god oh no please don't), and I want to play games because they're interactive and the story (hopefully) ends up feeling more organic (And I can use it later when writing stories solo)

... no matter what system you use, the players have to be willing to tell your story. If you don't have their cooperation, there are an infinite number of ways for your story to be derailed and shot to hell if they happen to disagree with the moral.

What a great antagonist! >:D And if it turns out the player is convincing and manages to change my mind, that's when I need to make a Plot Twist to make that player a protagonist. Probably a very tricky maneuver, but worth it.

In my experience (not much, mind you), the DM exists to make a story from the player actions, the players don't exist to make actions according to the DM's story.

For any games I run, the players exist to bring my stories to a conclusion. The only reason NPC's exist is to give the players someone to talk to and to help manage the parts of the story the players can't.

I feel like I need to make the point that the players' characters don't have to always come out ahead of the rest of the world by the end of the game. The players just need to have fun.

EDIT: And if it ends up that all the players just die in the end, but they all had fun, then alright. (But I'd like to be able to retell the story and have the listener enjoy the story)