PDA

View Full Version : Did you mean Adventure Game?



Cluedrew
2018-06-10, 04:33 PM
So an old and learned man spoke of how older versions of D&D were known as a fantasy adventure game. (It was 2D8HP, and I'm sure he could elaborate if you asked.) Since that time I have found myself crashing violently into people's positions over an issue related to this. Most recently Cosi and I had a back-and-forth on whether you should start at challenges or story for designing a system. And I think there is a more core issue here.

Do you want a role-playing game or an adventure game? Before anyone calls me out on one-true-way, this references a description of role-playing games I wrote a while back, describing systems as a mix of a series of sub-games. A one line description of each:
Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context. Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.

Note that although role-playing game is listed here, that is different from the genre, which contains variable amounts of the name sake role-playing. In many (notably D&D) the second adventure type is usually more prominent. Unfortunately any game that mixes the first three seems to be called a role-playing game now.

But if that were not the case and we had more precise terms for that: Would you be talking about adventure games instead of role-playing games? Do you like the role-playing part as much or more than the adventuring? Are you here for the challenges and problem solving instead of the "how does my character break the bad news to the rest of the party?" I think we may have gotten the names a bit muddled along the way.

The same can probably be said for Story-Telling Games as well, but around here is seems to be a less relevant distinction.

Nifft
2018-06-10, 06:45 PM
So an old and learned man spoke of how older versions of D&D were known as a fantasy adventure game. Gosh, I wonder why Fantasy Adventure Game didn't catch on as a moniker, while RPG did.


(It was 2D8HP, and I'm sure he could elaborate if you asked.) Since that time I have found myself crashing violently into people's positions over an issue related to this. Most recently Cosi and I had a back-and-forth on whether you should start at challenges or story for designing a system. And I think there is a more core issue here.

Do you want a role-playing game or an adventure game? Before anyone calls me out on one-true-way, this references a description of role-playing games I wrote a while back, describing systems as a mix of a series of sub-games. A one line description of each:
Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context. Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.

Note that although role-playing game is listed here, that is different from the genre, which contains variable amounts of the name sake role-playing. In many (notably D&D) the second adventure type is usually more prominent. Unfortunately any game that mixes the first three seems to be called a role-playing game now.

But if that were not the case and we had more precise terms for that: Would you be talking about adventure games instead of role-playing games? Do you like the role-playing part as much or more than the adventuring? Are you here for the challenges and problem solving instead of the "how does my character break the bad news to the rest of the party?" I think we may have gotten the names a bit muddled along the way.

The same can probably be said for Story-Telling Games as well, but around here is seems to be a less relevant distinction.

I like the names & distinctions as aspects of a game, but obviously most games involve several of those (or all of them).

Thinker
2018-06-10, 07:18 PM
I like the names & distinctions as aspects of a game, but obviously most games involve several of those (or all of them).

I think you have to pick one to be superior otherwise we can't be pedantic about it on the Internet.

Anonymouswizard
2018-06-10, 07:26 PM
Gosh, I wonder why Fantasy Adventure Game didn't catch on as a moniker, while RPG did.

Probably didn't want more kids picking up smoking.


I like the names & distinctions as aspects of a game, but obviously most games involve several of those (or all of them).

Same here. In some ways it works with both rulesets and GM styles.

Cluedrew
2018-06-10, 07:39 PM
I would just say adventure game myself, the fantasy part is kind of optional.

Also in the thread where I originally created the model I talked about how most role-playing games (in the general sense) have all four. Or at least it seems to be assumed. But if start cutting out too many of them you shift away from the role-playing game as it is commonly understood.

That isn't supposed to be the main point of the thread, but sure.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-10, 08:32 PM
a mix of a series of sub-games. A one line description of each:
Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context.
Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.



Well, I'm a deep storytelling, deep role playing, action adventure gamer myself.

I note your list does not cover some points like:

Roll-Playing Game: Dice based actions with little of anything else.

This is not an ''attack'' on such people or whatever negatives people want to apply to it. A great many gamers want to play the roll playing game. They want to do the ''my character talks to the guards and rolls a 17'' and have the DM say ''the guards let you pass''.

Game based Game: Character-skill based exploration and problem solving.

Again, not an ''attack''. As a great many gamers only want to mechanically play a character. They want all the exploration and problem solving of the adventure type game, but they the player personaly, don't want to do things in the game.

I'm making this distinction as it is a HUGE one in RPGs. Say the characters encounter a locked item with a multi colored plate and tiny moveable tokens, that when put in the right order open the item:

*Adventure Game is player based exploration and problem solving. So this is the DM giving the Players the puzzle for them to solve for real.

*Game based Game is character based. So this is the player doing an action or rolling a check for their character to solve the puzzle.

This has always been a huge split in the game, and depending in the writer the game has taken both sides. A lot of older adventures do have the players 100% figure things out, and even come with things such as player handouts . A lot of the more modern adventures use the more ''make a check to solve'' , but this was done in the past too.

Keltest
2018-06-10, 09:19 PM
As with most things, this attempt to attach unnecessarily specific labels to something seems to miss the forest for the trees. Its a Tabletop Roleplaying Game. That's the only name you need. Anything else you need to attach to that is going to be specific to your group, and possibly even different to specific games among the same group. With the exception of Wargame, which legitimately describes something radically different from a D&D esque character based game, the deeper you go and the more labels you try to apply, the less accurate it will be and the more meaningless the name becomes.

The Glyphstone
2018-06-10, 09:30 PM
Well, I'm a deep storytelling, deep role playing, action adventure gamer myself.

I note your list does not cover some points like:

Roll-Playing Game: Dice based actions with little of anything else.

This is not an ''attack'' on such people or whatever negatives people want to apply to it. A great many gamers want to play the roll playing game. They want to do the ''my character talks to the guards and rolls a 17'' and have the DM say ''the guards let you pass''.


Isn't that covered under the "Wargame' moniker? The label given is vague enough to allow 'beating' via non-combat means, but the essential category is reducing actions and results to dice rolls.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-10, 09:32 PM
As with most things, this attempt to attach unnecessarily specific labels to something seems to miss the forest for the trees. Its a Tabletop Roleplaying Game. That's the only name you need. Anything else you need to attach to that is going to be specific to your group, and possibly even different to specific games among the same group. With the exception of Wargame, which legitimately describes something radically different from a D&D esque character based game, the deeper you go and the more labels you try to apply, the less accurate it will be and the more meaningless the name becomes.

I mostly agree. But I think there is value in trying to analyze and categorize the myriad preferred foci for players. Some prefer more of a character orientation. Others more of a challenge orientation. Others a more narrative orientation. Yet others a more game-mechanical orientation. Etc. Most people are a mix of various orientations, but if a DM understands what the primary ones for his players are, he can better adapt to their desires, including possibly switching systems to find one that better supports the desired play styles.

Cluedrew
2018-06-10, 09:34 PM
Speaking of missing the forest for the trees: I think I'm going to have to redact that model or something it really isn't the point. (As much as I want to correct misunderstandings about it, it is not the point.) The point is: Are you here for the adventure game? OK that probably isn't going to help anyone understand what it is going on.

I'm going to need another way to describe this. This one isn't working. Maybe I should talk about the design principle disagreement that sparked this. In short Cosi said something about starting from challenges, I said you should start from story and we stopped but I was thinking about it and I think that this distinction kind of explains that difference in mind set.

I'll think about it. See if I can create a better presentation of the idea.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-10, 09:59 PM
Isn't that covered under the "Wargame' moniker? The label given is vague enough to allow 'beating' via non-combat means, but the essential category is reducing actions and results to dice rolls.

I think it is notable enough to be separate.

The Wargame type game will most likely skip anything that is not combat. To even roll play ''talking'' to an NPC would be wrong and make less time for pure combat. And a Roll Playing game might very well have hours of roll playing, but no combat, and that woun't fly in a Wargame.

Cluedrew
2018-06-11, 07:52 AM
OK, I can't think of another way to raise the issue except to focus in on adventure and role-playing groups. And to talk about their relative ordering proportions. Mostly I think some people seem to prefer adventure game as the core of the game over the others.

I suppose I should describe them in more detail, although I don't have time for a complete write up right now. But I will say that "roll playing" a.k.a. using a resolution mechanic to resolve something, does come from wargame. And the others as well. Because having and using rules that say how things in the game happen is part of "game", and so can come from any of the component games. These groups have fuzzy edges and overlap in places (although I have yet to find something that is not covered), which is fine because this is a communication tool, not a scientific definition.

Pelle
2018-06-11, 08:16 AM
The point is: Are you here for the adventure game?

More or less, yes. Playing a single adventure, where the characters have to solve the predefined quest, doesn't really work for my group, though. But to me, the characters absolutely need to have goals they are working towards reaching by overcoming obstacles, for it to be fun and exciting. Be it solving a mystery, trying to become rich, or going after the BBEG. Engaging with the world is important, but there also needs to be challenges for it to be a worthwhile time sink. So I'm here for both the RPG and the AG.

Quertus
2018-06-11, 09:10 AM
The point is: Are you here for the adventure game?



Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context. Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.


Hmmm... Although I'm not completely sure what you mean by STG, I'd have to say that I'm definitely here for a combination of the other three, plus other things - like spending time with friends, for example.

Oh, you like cupcakes - are you here for the cake, the icing, the size, the wrapper, or the extras? It feels to me that someone asking such a question is unlikely to get why I like cupcakes.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-06-11, 09:40 AM
I'm not entirely attached to Wargaming as being distinct from a combat-focused Adventure game, but...

An alternative way of looking at it might be "what's the underlying motive driving the PLAYER'S choices," perhaps.

In a Story-Telling game, the goal is to create an overarching narrative-- you make decisions based on what will cause the most interesting conflicts and developments. Fiasco, say-- you'll gleefully do terrible things to" your" character, or sabotage goals and undo progress, in the name of Story.

In an Adventure Game, the goal is to accomplish something in-universe (kill the monsters, save the princess, explore the jungle, etc)-- you make decisions along tactical lines. What will give your characters the most success, the most progress towards their goal? Old-school D&D, from what I understand, is very much this.

Roleplaying games, I think, fall somewhere in between, where your decisions as a PLAYER are attempting to be as close as possible to what the CHARACTER would decide. You're trying to succeed at an in-universe goal, but with blinders-- you'll generally make optimal choices, except when your character's personality would dictate otherwise. Fate is a good example of this, methinks-- it rewards you for sticking with your characterization.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-11, 10:33 AM
OK, I can't think of another way to raise the issue except to focus in on adventure and role-playing groups. And to talk about their relative ordering proportions. Mostly I think some people seem to prefer adventure game as the core of the game over the others.


I can see four splits here:

Mundane Gaming and Adventure Gaming
Role playing Gaming and Roll Playing Gaming

and they are put together:

Mundane Role Playing Gaming: This is the very popular way of having the characters live a second life. The game focus here is on the mundane, with deep role playing and details. This game is very heavy not just on role play in general, but the role play of every mundane part of the world. This game naturally requires real life player skills and social skills.

Mundane Roll Playing Gaming: Not too popular, but this is of course literal rolling dice for every tiny mundane action. It is literally: the DC to break open an egg and get it all in the bowl is 5, roll a 1d20 cooking skill to attempt this task. This game naturally requires real life player game knowledge mastery and game skills.

Adventure Roll Playing Gaming: This is the classic ''like a war game'', and the game does focus on an adventure, but the plot and the story are light in details and a lot is skipped over to focus on the adventure. And the vast majority of everything in the game is rolled for, always. This game naturally requires real life player game knowledge mastery and game skills.

Adventure Role Playing Gaming: The ''Other'' classic one, with the game focused on the adventure, the plot and story are heavy with details and is very inclusive of everything as part of the adventure. The vast majority of things are role played out, most notably any social interactions. This game naturally requires real life player skills and social skills.


Now it should be noted that the descriptions of Mundane, Adventure, Role Playing and Roll Playing are NOT intended in any way to be good or bad. They are just descriptions. Some people, true, are obsessed with calling some of them ''bad'', but we don't care about such people. You might like or dislike one or more of them, but that in no way makes then good or bad.

And also note the descriptions are intended to describe what happens in the game most of the time, not all of the time. A roll playing game might very well have a long role playing encounter or a role playing game might have a long roll playing encounter. Still, most of the time the game sticks to the description.

Nifft
2018-06-11, 11:29 AM
I'm not entirely attached to Wargaming as being distinct from a combat-focused Adventure game, but...

I think the idea is that a Wargame has a significant "deck-building" / team-optimization phase which occurs before the game, while an Adventure Game is more focused on what any normal person could do in the adventure's environment.

tensai_oni
2018-06-11, 11:37 AM
A one line description of each:
Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context. Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.


This is a very good classification. I played and encountered all four of these kinds of games* and they all felt different, but also distinct enough if categorized across these lines.

*By games I obviously mean individual groups and not RPG systems in general.


I can see four splits here:

Mundane Gaming and Adventure Gaming
Role playing Gaming and Roll Playing Gaming

I disagree. Role vs roll playing kinda fits, though adventure gaming can be either, but there's nothing mundane vs adventure about this classification. Instead I'd say the split is across:

Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on story

The first split describes whether in the game it's more important what your character can do or what the player controlling the character can do. Wargames (which also include hack and slash dungeon crawling) are the former because they're about fighting enemies using your character's abilities, but role-playing games are also about the former because you want to act in tune with what the character is capable of or knows. Adventure games are the latter because they tend to focus on creative problem solving, puzzles/traps, and other situations where player ingenuity is an important trait. Storytelling games are also the latter because they focus on figuring out what interesting things should happen next, and describing it in an enjoyable manner.

The second split is simple. Challenge focused-games are about overcoming obstacles. It's not necessarily about combat, traps - the obstacles could be social, political, etc in nature, but in the end it boils down to the game being a series of various encounters you need to win to progress further. Story-focused games are about telling an enjoyable tale instead. They still may contain challenges to overcome, but the focus isn't on whether heroes win the fight but did anything interesting happen during the fight.

Quertus
2018-06-11, 11:38 AM
Well, I'm a deep storytelling, deep role playing, action adventure gamer myself.

I note your list does not cover some points like:

Roll-Playing Game: Dice based actions with little of anything else.

This is not an ''attack'' on such people or whatever negatives people want to apply to it. A great many gamers want to play the roll playing game. They want to do the ''my character talks to the guards and rolls a 17'' and have the DM say ''the guards let you pass''.

Game based Game: Character-skill based exploration and problem solving.

Again, not an ''attack''. As a great many gamers only want to mechanically play a character. They want all the exploration and problem solving of the adventure type game, but they the player personaly, don't want to do things in the game.

I'm making this distinction as it is a HUGE one in RPGs. Say the characters encounter a locked item with a multi colored plate and tiny moveable tokens, that when put in the right order open the item:

*Adventure Game is player based exploration and problem solving. So this is the DM giving the Players the puzzle for them to solve for real.

*Game based Game is character based. So this is the player doing an action or rolling a check for their character to solve the puzzle.

This has always been a huge split in the game, and depending in the writer the game has taken both sides. A lot of older adventures do have the players 100% figure things out, and even come with things such as player handouts . A lot of the more modern adventures use the more ''make a check to solve'' , but this was done in the past too.

I think that you are more right than people are likely to give you credit for. It's important not just to have all the right parts, but for them to be in the right places. To continue my cupcake example, the wrapper should be on the bottom of the cake, to give me something clean and solid to hold onto, and to keep the cake fresh. The icing should be on top of the cake, to keep the cake fresh, and for appearance. If the icing is beneath the wrapper, or the wrapper is chopped up and baked into the cake or sprinkled on top, it's a fail case.

Take, for example, the case where, in the GM's world, it's expected that barn fires can be put out through mundane means. This is not something that the players can just roleplay - anyone with any knowledge or intuition of how that should work will roleplay their character at odds with the rest of the world. Without a master's in "the GM's world", role-playing is not an option. So, instead, there needs to be roll-playing, and the GM needs to just give the players the knowledge that their PCs would have so as not to seem pants on head stupid - especially if they are playing the cliched "idiot farm boy".

The exception to this, of course, is characters like mine, who are "not from around here", who hail from worlds with physics that much more closely resembles that found in this world. For them, the mundanely-solvable nature of a barn fire should come as quite a shock - one which they might well choose to Explore, to determine if the nature of the hay, or of fire, or of some other physical element has caused the change, or whether barns are protected by some form of Narrativium (in which case, expect them to try to find some way to drain that Narrativium for use in the creation of Cloaks of Fire Resistance).

This is a problem many GMs - including myself - have, that we will attempt to run setting elements about which we personally lack the relevant experience. How we respond to this does a lot to determine how palatable a game is.

RazorChain
2018-06-11, 11:42 AM
When I was younger I was into acting both with my school and an amateur theater group.

When acting you take on a role and you explore that role, what motivates it, why it does what it does. This means exploring it's background and even making up a background for the role you are acting.

A lot of acting training/learning focuses on improvising, making a role and improvising it.

For me RPG's are a bit like that.


If we likened this to movies then some people like action movies, not too much focus on the characters but all the action, this would be the adventure game

Then we have a movie with a complex plot that has the audience go aha in the end. This is the story telling game.

Then we have a drama with a lot of character developement. This is the Roleplaying Game.

It's all movies but just with different styles and focus.


So for me Roleplaying is about exploring a role, most people do this to a degree and some not at all.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-11, 12:21 PM
Take, for example, the case where, in the GM's world, it's expected that barn fires can be put out through mundane means. This is not something that the players can just roleplay - anyone with any knowledge or intuition of how that should work will roleplay their character at odds with the rest of the world. Without a master's in "the GM's world", role-playing is not an option. So, instead, there needs to be roll-playing, and the GM needs to just give the players the knowledge that their PCs would have so as not to seem pants on head stupid - especially if they are playing the cliched "idiot farm boy".

This is not true.

Just about every RPG is based on reality as we know it, especially the elementary basic. And every game setting from Once Upon a Time Fantasy, to Far Future is set in the same basic reality. So, for example, a barn fire is exactly the same in D&D, Star Wars D6, Star Trek Adventures or Boot Hill. The barn made out of wood will burn, exactly like a real barn in our real world, and things like water or dirt can put out the fire(note: try water first).

To say a player is just going to act all clueless and be like ''well I have no idea how to put out a barn fire'' unless I can find that specific action in the rules OR the DM specifically tells me the special rules for this game reality that are the same as real life, my character can't do anything''....seems odd at best. And it's just a player being a jerk at worse. Really for a player to sit there and say ''well I did not know water puts out fire as it is not in the rules and, the DM never specifically said that it did" is just being dumb.




This is a problem many GMs - including myself - have, that we will attempt to run setting elements about which we personally lack the relevant experience. How we respond to this does a lot to determine how palatable a game is.

This is a big problem, and it's a good way to split the Average DMs from the Good DMs too and even a ''player'' and a ''DM''. The Good DM knows they don't ''have the experience'' and will better themselves and get that knowledge and experience TO run that element.

Really, no matter the setting, it will have a LOT of elements to it that an average DM simply won't know about. Even in the modern day, and a modern setting, few people know how or why anything works....and this just goes double or triple or more for anything in the past.

I do highly recommend reading a lot, traveling a lot and most of all doing at lot to get real world experience. I live nearby a ''Old Tyme Village'' and I have spend several summers working there, and everything in the village is in the 19th century (no phones, no lights, no motorcars). I have spent a summer week as a blacksmith(and I made a nail, that I still have on my wall), for example.

Beleriphon
2018-06-11, 01:15 PM
I do highly recommend reading a lot, traveling a lot and most of all doing at lot to get real world experience. I live nearby a ''Old Tyme Village'' and I have spend several summers working there, and everything in the village is in the 19th century (no phones, no lights, no motorcars). I have spent a summer week as a blacksmith(and I made a nail, that I still have on my wall), for example.

I have one of those near me as well, but unless they're going to let me make a cavalry sabre I'm out :smallbiggrin: Even at that a 19th century historic recreation villages isn't the same thing as a 12th century village, the knownledge of metallurgy and general availability of materials is going to be much better, even if its just a matter of using coal vs charcoal in a forge.

Cluedrew
2018-06-11, 01:52 PM
Hmmm... Although I'm not completely sure what you mean by STG, I'd have to say that I'm definitely here for a combination of the other three, plus other things - like spending time with friends, for example.Story-Telling Game? From what I know of you it probably is one you would be least interested in. It is the more out-of-character story based decisions. Compared to role-playing, correctly portraying the character takes a step down, although good consistent characters are still important there are other concerns that is fighting with. Also much more likely to have rules to let the players- to effect the environment and that sort of thing.


I'm not entirely attached to Wargaming as being distinct from a combat-focused Adventure game, but...Funny story, first time I presented this model, they where the same group. However after a page or two I split Adventure off of war game. Short version: Wargame is the character creation mini-game while Adventure Game is figuring out all the things you can do with a 10-foot pole.

The wargame part is a lot about building a character (or skill set to generalize) and then applying those skills as is. Yes it would also include applying those skills well (again there is overlap) but that is more the area of the adventure game. In the "typical" adventure game you have little control over what abilities you get, it is a matter of using them well.

At least, that is what I had in mind when I split them up.


Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on storyThat might... actually be how to do it. The lines line up rather neatly so at the very least it is a nice two scale representation of the system. I originally got this model by considering what other games share elements with role-playing games and realize that there is a lot of stuff in role-playing games that is not part of "the platonic ideal" role-playing game. Which I'm not actually sure would be a lot of fun, so that isn't a problem. But what got mixed in changed a lot system to system, so I created this to talk about that. It is evolving though, this two axis thing might be more useful, I'll have to think on it.


Focus on the characterFocus on the player
Focus on storyRole-PlayingStory-Telling
Focus on challengeWargameAdventure

Quertus
2018-06-11, 02:33 PM
Roleplaying games, I think, fall somewhere in between, where your decisions as a PLAYER are attempting to be as close as possible to what the CHARACTER would decide. You're trying to succeed at an in-universe goal, but with blinders-- you'll generally make optimal choices, except when your character's personality would dictate otherwise. Fate is a good example of this, methinks-- it rewards you for sticking with your characterization.

To me, war gaming is about how the playing piece interacts with the mechanics of challenges and rules; role-playing is about how the character chooses to interact with the environment.


Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on story

The first split describes whether in the game it's more important what your character can do or what the player controlling the character can do. Wargames (which also include hack and slash dungeon crawling) are the former because they're about fighting enemies using your character's abilities, but role-playing games are also about the former because you want to act in tune with what the character is capable of or knows. Adventure games are the latter because they tend to focus on creative problem solving, puzzles/traps, and other situations where player ingenuity is an important trait. Storytelling games are also the latter because they focus on figuring out what interesting things should happen next, and describing it in an enjoyable manner.

The second split is simple. Challenge focused-games are about overcoming obstacles. It's not necessarily about combat, traps - the obstacles could be social, political, etc in nature, but in the end it boils down to the game being a series of various encounters you need to win to progress further. Story-focused games are about telling an enjoyable tale instead. They still may contain challenges to overcome, but the focus isn't on whether heroes win the fight but did anything interesting happen during the fight.


That might... actually be how to do it. The lines line up rather neatly so at the very least it is a nice two scale representation of the system. I originally got this model by considering what other games share elements with role-playing games and realize that there is a lot of stuff in role-playing games that is not part of "the platonic ideal" role-playing game. Which I'm not actually sure would be a lot of fun, so that isn't a problem. But what got mixed in changed a lot system to system, so I created this to talk about that. It is evolving though, this two axis thing might be more useful, I'll have to think on it.


Focus on the characterFocus on the player
Focus on storyRole-PlayingStory-Telling
Focus on challengeWargameAdventure


So, I was going to present what amounts to three of the four things here, but then I read this, and decided it was better.

However, I don't agree with the idea that role-playing involves trying to tell an enjoyable tale. Such an OOC concern is the furthest thing from my mind when trying to roleplay.

So, to try to integrate this forth idea into what I was going to say...

Role-playing is when you focus on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
War Gaming is when you focus on the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you focus on the player, the problem solving skills they have, how they interpret the world.
Story Telling Game is when you focus on trying to optimize the resulting story?


Story-Telling Game? From what I know of you it probably is one you would be least interested in. It is the more out-of-character story based decisions. Compared to role-playing, correctly portraying the character takes a step down, although good consistent characters are still important there are other concerns that is fighting with. Also much more likely to have rules to let the players- to effect the environment and that sort of thing.

Fair to say that that's less important to me.

However, I've been looking back on some of my old games, and wondering if I wouldn't have better stories to tell if I'd metagamed for story sometimes.

Nifft
2018-06-11, 02:36 PM
Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on story




Focus on the characterFocus on the player
Focus on storyRole-PlayingStory-Telling
Focus on challengeWargameAdventure


I think this is a useful jargon breakdown.

Kudos to both of you.

Pelle
2018-06-11, 03:52 PM
Focus on the characterFocus on the player
Focus on storyRole-PlayingStory-Telling
Focus on challengeWargameAdventure


I am a bit skeptical, purely based on that I care mostly about the RPG and AG, which fits rather strange with that diagram. Or maybe it just explains what I think should be focus for character and player respectively...

Darth Ultron
2018-06-11, 06:11 PM
Focus on the characterFocus on the player
Focus on storyRole-PlayingStory-Telling
Focus on challengeWargameAdventure


This table seems a bit mixed up.

Focus on the challenge and character fits ''wargame'', or even Roll Playing....and you can do this type of game with no plot or story like a classic ''hex crawl'', but the game can also have a plot and story. And, in any case, this game will just about always be an ''Adventure''.

Focus on the story and focus on the character seems ok, except the player does not need to tell a story to role play. They can just role play separate from the story, and the game does not even need a story.

The the twist of the two is focus on the challenge and focus on the player need not be ''an adventure'' and can very often be Story Telling. And ''adventure'' is not pure mechanics like roll playing, it also has a huge role playing part. And a great many players do like the challenge of the game to be focused on them, not the character: they want to have the fun of doing things, not just rolling some dice and having the character do things...as that falls back to roll playing.

Focus on the story and focus on the player seems a bit odd, as the story won't ever really ''focus'' on the player. And, as the player will make a character that they want to role play in a story, it does make the focus burred at best, or at worse, non extant.

Focus on the story and focus on the character seems ok, except the player does not need to tell a story to role play. They can just role play separate from the story, and the game does not even need a story.




Role-playing is when you focus on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
War Gaming is when you focus on the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you focus on the player, the problem solving skills they have, how they interpret the world.
Story Telling Game is when you focus on trying to optimize the resulting story?


Role Playing looks fine
I'd call ''war gaming'' Roll Playing, though it looks fine.
A story telling game does have a focus on the story, so fine here.

But the Adventure game does seem odd to focus on the player. Maybe this should be more like ''action game"?

Adventure, and Mundane might need to be separate categories. Adventure for fiction and Mundane for reality gaming.

''Adventure'' need to be broken up between ''action and mundane'' AND ''Roll and Role playing''. Adventure is not just roll playing the mechanics.

jayem
2018-06-11, 06:58 PM
Perhaps Roll-playing (Gambling) could fit between Story and Role-play.
It's kind of like a challenge, but you don't really think things through and plan them.
And it's not really got the depth of focusing on story, but you do care about events and have to move on.

Quite where mundane type things would go. You don't really have a challenge or true story. Perhaps you could have Focus on character as a yet another row entry.
And then change the columns to Player perspective and Character perspective.

That gives



Character perspective
Player perspective



Focus on story
Acting/Drama
Story telling



Focus on character
Role play
??Characture study??



----
----
----
----



Focus on challenge (skill)
wargaming
adventure



Focus on luck
??gambling (rollplaying)??
??gambling (rollplaying)??




Anyhow all of them I like.

Quertus
2018-06-11, 07:16 PM
Role-playing is when you focus on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
War Gaming is when you focus on the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you focus on the player, the problem solving skills they have, how they interpret the world.
Story Telling Game is when you focus on trying to optimize the resulting story?


Role Playing looks fine
I'd call ''war gaming'' Roll Playing, though it looks fine.
A story telling game does have a focus on the story, so fine here.

But the Adventure game does seem odd to focus on the player. Maybe this should be more like ''action game"?

Adventure, and Mundane might need to be separate categories. Adventure for fiction and Mundane for reality gaming.

''Adventure'' need to be broken up between ''action and mundane'' AND ''Roll and Role playing''. Adventure is not just roll playing the mechanics.

"Adventure gaming" - aside from being in the title of the thread - is the current name for "challenging the player" / using player skills / etc.

Hmmm... how about...

War Gaming is when you challenge the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you challenge the player, their problem solving skills and ability to interpret the world / puzzles / etc.
Role-playing is when you make decisions based on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
Story Telling Game is when you make decisions based on trying to optimize the final story?

icefractal
2018-06-11, 07:37 PM
Resolving things primarily based on game mechanics vs resolving them based on the GMs judgement of the player's described actions (aka "rollplaying vs roleplaying") is a case where there are benefits to both, and doesn't just map to "combat vs story".

Notably, a lot of narrative games, like Fate, are fairly strongly on the mechanics based side. Of course you're encouraged to describe things in a way that fits the fiction, not just say "Roll succeeded, it happened, done.", but ultimately the roll is considered a fact that the fiction should conform to.

Benefits to mechanics-based:
* Potentially a more accurate simulation of the IC world, since it's based on character skill rather than player skill.
* Can be resolved very quickly, for things the group doesn't care much about.
* Impartial, allowing a competitive-type game if desired, and avoiding subconscious bias toward a desired outcome.
* Requires less perception-synchronizing between the GM and players.

Benefits to judgement-based:
* Increases immersion (for many people)
* Potentially more detailed and handles corner cases better than a finite rulebook can.
* Solving things with player skill can be a fun and engaging activity.
* Requires less rules familiarity.

It's rare for a group to use 100% one or the other though; it's a spectrum.

Quertus
2018-06-12, 06:15 AM
Role-playing is when you focus on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
War Gaming is when you focus on the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you focus on the player, the problem solving skills they have, how they interpret the world.
Story Telling Game is when you focus on trying to optimize the resulting story?


War Gaming is when you challenge the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you challenge the player, their problem solving skills and ability to interpret the world / puzzles / etc.
Role-playing is when you make decisions based on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
Story Telling Game is when you make decisions based on trying to optimize the final story?

Ok, third time's the charm?

War Gaming is when you make choices based on the playing pieces, their statistics, what they can do.
Adventure Game is when you make choices based on the player, their problem solving skills and ability to interpret the world / puzzles / etc.
Role-playing is when you make decisions based on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
Story Telling Game is when you make decisions based on what would make for a good story?

So, you're in a fight. The optimal course of action is to apply maximum alpha strike DPS to the Necromancer. But your character is vengeful, so the best role-playing answer may be to attack his lieutenant, who did bad stuff to you earlier in the campaign.

And this is where it breaks down for me.

Because what makes the best story? For the Paladin to smite holy vengeance upon the Necromancer? For the Druid to smite holly vengeance upon the Necromancer? For the Wizard to defeat the Necromancer in some classic Wizard's duel? For the evil Drow Rogue to show that the power of evil is stronger, and kill the Necromancer themselves? For the party to kill the Necromancer as a team? For the Necromancer to get away? For the party to redeem the Necromancer? For the Necromancer to kill one or more party members before one of the above? For the lieutenant to die? Be captured? Get away? Get converted? Betray his master? But making decisions based on any of those would be metagaming Story-based thinking, I suppose.

And, completely in opposition to anything said so far this thread, when I think in terms of the players here, I think things like, "gee, it would be cool to try out this new spell / item / maneuver", "it would be nice for Orkrit, Blade of Doom, to have something memorable for its 100th kill", "which character has gotten the least limelight recently?", or "I wonder how the party would feel about dropping the ceiling on this encounter?".

Lorsa
2018-06-12, 06:37 AM
Speaking of missing the forest for the trees: I think I'm going to have to redact that model or something it really isn't the point. (As much as I want to correct misunderstandings about it, it is not the point.) The point is: Are you here for the adventure game? OK that probably isn't going to help anyone understand what it is going on.

I'm going to need another way to describe this. This one isn't working. Maybe I should talk about the design principle disagreement that sparked this. In short Cosi said something about starting from challenges, I said you should start from story and we stopped but I was thinking about it and I think that this distinction kind of explains that difference in mind set.

I'll think about it. See if I can create a better presentation of the idea.

Can you elaborate what you mean with those deign principles? How does "starting from challenges" differ from "starting from story" and what do you mean by it?

Cluedrew
2018-06-12, 08:00 AM
I am a bit skeptical, purely based on that I care mostly about the RPG and AG, which fits rather strange with that diagram. Or maybe it just explains what I think should be focus for character and player respectively...I think I am story-telling & wargame myself. I think the answer to this is simple. Most systems have different parts that we can measure separately, not just with this system but many others. As a simple example character creation and pre-game set-up usually looks different than the system mechanics for the main play. Other people I know enjoy social aspects to be much more freeform than the rest of the system and so on.


Perhaps Roll-playing (Gambling) could fit between Story and Role-play.
It's kind of like a challenge, but you don't really think things through and plan them.
And it's not really got the depth of focusing on story, but you do care about events and have to move on.I mean you could, but the more finely grained you go the less general the description becomes. Right now I am trying to keep this very general.


Ok, third time's the charm?

War Gaming is when you make choices based on the playing pieces, their statistics, what they can do.
Adventure Game is when you make choices based on the player, their problem solving skills and ability to interpret the world / puzzles / etc.
Role-playing is when you make decisions based on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
Story Telling Game is when you make decisions based on what would make for a good story?It is a pretty good one line of each (I haven't found time to respond). I would add to war games that this also includes creating the playing pieces. So the character creation mini-game is definitely a wargame thing in this model. As for story-telling... yes that sounds about right. I usually prefer the interesting situations phrasing but maybe "making decisions based on how they will shape the story" might be a better way to do it. First it takes the "good" out of it. Not that we want bad stories but good is very subjective as you suggested later in your post.


Can you elaborate what you mean with those deign principles? How does "starting from challenges" differ from "starting from story" and what do you mean by it?I would probably have to get Cosi back to explain that. It came from a brief exchange we had in Fixing D&D: YOUR WAY (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?560617-Fixing-D-amp-D-YOUR-WAY/page3) starting at post 82. This conversation has kind of gone in a different direction, that was the spark but it fit in with a bunch of other ideas.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-12, 11:49 AM
Ok, third time's the charm?

War Gaming is when you make choices based on the playing pieces, their statistics, what they can do.
Adventure Game is when you make choices based on the player, their problem solving skills and ability to interpret the world / puzzles / etc.
Role-playing is when you make decisions based on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
Story Telling Game is when you make decisions based on what would make for a good story?


I think this is loosing focus a bit, and even maybe derailing the thread.

The basic idea is the Adventure Game vs the Role Playing Game or even more direct: Roll Playing vs Role Playing.

Now, ''role playing games'' as we know them come from Wargames, and this is RPG History 101. So, setting the Wayback Machine for the early '70's: with a small company making War Games. This was Chainmail, a War Game..and it had a tiny fantasy appendix. And out of that grew the idea to make a and had the idea of making a more fantasy based War Game, and not a more historical based one.

When Dave Arneson read the Chainmail fantasy rules, he adapted them to a fantasy world of his own creation, Blackmoor. The premise was simple: players would portray only a single character and would explore underground dungeons where they would face perils and puzzles. Dave showed this game to Gary Gygax and soon, Gary & Dave had codified all their ideas and experiences into a ruleset they titled Dungeons & Dragons.

And right here, literally right at the beginning of D&D is the split: Roll Playing vs Role Playing. Dave was on the side of Role Playing, and Gary was on the side of Roll Playing. And, as anyone can tell you, Gary's side was much more dominant in D&D. While D&D was called a ''role playing game'', it was a very light role playing game. Gary loved charts and tables and dice: and so D&D was full of them. Role Playing as in 'acting out a character' took a huge back seat to the Roll Playing of dice, mechanics and tables.

And for years, this was D&D: The Roll Playing game...that had the hint of role playing, you could really add it or not, for years. Until much later when Gary was less and influence and then gone....and Dragonlance came out. Dragonlance really shined a spot light on setting, story, plot and most of all Role Playing. The actual rules of D&D did not change much to reflect this, but the idea was added to the game.

And in 2018, the split is still alive and well. As a ton of gamers where not even alive when the game was created, it does just seem to be a natural split between personalities. And even today, you have the gamers that what a deep immersion role playing game and the players that want a deep rule roll playing game.


So, this brings us back to your four points....and I don't think the focus should be on ''how'' you make choices. Really any choice is based on the game rules and what you want to do.

You can't separate the Rules from the Character or the Story or the Player.

*Rules Roll Playing(''wargame''): You have to play by the rules. You character can do X, and can't do Y and has a 50% of doing Z. This is all in the rules and will effect most of the decisions.

*Player Role Playing(''adventure") making choices based on the player, their problem solving skills and ability to interpret the world / puzzles / etc

*Character Role Playing: making decisions based on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.

*Storytelling: Telling a Story. Making decisions based on telling a Story.

Now, the important thing to keep in mind is that most games will have all four of the above, just at different levels(lets say on a 1 to 3 scale)

A Classic pre '85 D&D 'Adventure' game is like Rules 3, Player 3, Character 1, Storytelling 1.

''Modern'' generic D&D: Rules 3, Player 1, Character 2, Storytelling 1.

''Epic Story" D&D: Rules 2, Player 2, Character 3, Storytelling 3.

And a non D&D Storytelling game: Rules 1, Player 1, Character 3, Storytelling 3.

Friv
2018-06-12, 05:02 PM
Take, for example, the case where, in the GM's world, it's expected that barn fires can be put out through mundane means. This is not something that the players can just roleplay - anyone with any knowledge or intuition of how that should work will roleplay their character at odds with the rest of the world. Without a master's in "the GM's world", role-playing is not an option. So, instead, there needs to be roll-playing, and the GM needs to just give the players the knowledge that their PCs would have so as not to seem pants on head stupid - especially if they are playing the cliched "idiot farm boy".

I laughed.

Quertus
2018-06-12, 05:41 PM
It is a pretty good one line of each (I haven't found time to respond). I would add to war games that this also includes creating the playing pieces. So the character creation mini-game is definitely a wargame thing in this model. As for story-telling... yes that sounds about right. I usually prefer the interesting situations phrasing but maybe "making decisions based on how they will shape the story" might be a better way to do it. First it takes the "good" out of it. Not that we want bad stories but good is very subjective as you suggested later in your post.

Well, no.

For me, character creation is primarily history and backstory and personality and psychology experiment - role-playing and adventure game. For some, it is primarily or exclusively the creation of a mechanical playing piece. And, for some, it's the expectation of certain interactions with the story.

Character creation can be primarily about any of these, and the focus and approach will yield different results.

Why, despite being my most successful massively multi-table character, who demonstrates the ability of a Wizard to not overshadow the party Fighter and Monk, does nobody else play Quertus, my signature tactically inept academia mage for whom this account is named?


I laughed.

:smallbiggrin:

Cluedrew
2018-06-12, 09:35 PM
To Quertus: OK, consider "character creation mini-game" as not referring to character creation in general, but the 3.5e "make the best character you can" mindset. Because it provides you with stronger tools for mechanical resolution later. Although it is sort of player skill thing itself seems to be aimed towards the character skill play style. Of course the closest action with a story focus would probably fall under story-telling so... I might have to come back to this.

To further confuse things I'm not actually sure if that is what I meant the first time, it is what I should of meant by the new version of the model but by the old model (before tensai_oni's addition) war game had a broader net over character creation because it was organized differently. Not as cleanly though, which is why I might consider this as an upgrade. It is an evolving system.

VincentTakeda
2018-06-12, 09:50 PM
I never thought of the Gygax/Arneson dichotomy to be a role/roll split. In fact I'd even say that if there was a split in this fashion, that gygax was more the role side and arneson the roll side. The way I read it, Gygas was an outdoorsy kinda kid who loved exploring all around. His game let you do that. Run all around. Arneson had a hard time wrangling players into staying on task or within the boundaries he'd prepared, so he came up with the 'dungeon' part of dungeons and dragons as a way of limiting players to 'turn right or left' instead of flitting off on some random tangent blazing off into the sunset in a way that Arneson hadn't prepped beforehand. The first set of rails in the railroad, if you will.

For me though a game is always going to be some combination of so many different things. Building an avatar. Showing some style. Constructing the most effective combination of traits and mechanics. Playing a part. Exploring a world. Using my abilities. Killin a thing. Solving a puzzle. Protect a thing. Rescue a thing. Rescue a person.

Everyone just puts the priority of these things into a different order. Trying to smash it down into a threefold or binary doesnt quite cut it. Tabletop gaming is pandimensional. Non euclidian. Thats what makes it great. As long as the game you're in lets you satisfy your favorite combination of things.

RazorChain
2018-06-12, 10:04 PM
Can you elaborate what you mean with those deign principles? How does "starting from challenges" differ from "starting from story" and what do you mean by it?



I would probably have to get Cosi back to explain that. It came from a brief exchange we had in Fixing D&D: YOUR WAY (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?560617-Fixing-D-amp-D-YOUR-WAY/page3) starting at post 82. This conversation has kind of gone in a different direction, that was the spark but it fit in with a bunch of other ideas.


I kinda get it. Gaming styles and principles mean different things to people. For example Cosi is focused on the aspect that the game is about overcoming obstacles or challenges, which is a valid observation.

But then again I've played with people who don't give much though about overcoming obstacles, they just got into character and had a whole conversations in character about their characters beliefs and philosophy. They were immersing themselves in the character, not in overcoming obstacles

Then I've had people who were mostly interested in story, drama and interpersonal relations. If an action was in character and lead to making the story more interesting then that was the right thing to do. Overcoming obstacles wasn't their goal..unless it made for a better story, they could just as well make new obstacles if it made things more interesting.

So what is right from a design principle? Story? Character? Challenge?

Quertus
2018-06-13, 12:03 AM
To Quertus: OK, consider "character creation mini-game" as not referring to character creation in general, but the 3.5e "make the best character you can" mindset. Because it provides you with stronger tools for mechanical resolution later. Although it is sort of player skill thing itself seems to be aimed towards the character skill play style. Of course the closest action with a story focus would probably fall under story-telling so... I might have to come back to this.

To further confuse things I'm not actually sure if that is what I meant the first time, it is what I should of meant by the new version of the model but by the old model (before tensai_oni's addition) war game had a broader net over character creation because it was organized differently. Not as cleanly though, which is why I might consider this as an upgrade. It is an evolving system.

That's still only one way to approach character creation, even in 3.5.

However, the "plan out a build from level 1-20" minigame that is, I think, nearly unique to 3e? That's mostly... hmmm... war gaming, or player skills, with a little bit of story demands? I think I'd label it player skills, which... could fall under... hmmm... anything? But I guess that those are war gamer player skills?

So, wait, if player skills can be accessed anywhere, what makes the Adventure Game component unique, again? :smallconfused:

Thrudd
2018-06-13, 02:41 AM
I kinda get it. Gaming styles and principles mean different things to people. For example Cosi is focused on the aspect that the game is about overcoming obstacles or challenges, which is a valid observation.

But then again I've played with people who don't give much though about overcoming obstacles, they just got into character and had a whole conversations in character about their characters beliefs and philosophy. They were immersing themselves in the character, not in overcoming obstacles

Then I've had people who were mostly interested in story, drama and interpersonal relations. If an action was in character and lead to making the story more interesting then that was the right thing to do. Overcoming obstacles wasn't their goal..unless it made for a better story, they could just as well make new obstacles if it made things more interesting.

So what is right from a design principle? Story? Character? Challenge?

There is no right thing. The right thing is to pick something and design rules to support it. It won't necessarily be possible to do them all simultaneously, at least not well.

Quertus
2018-06-13, 10:47 AM
To Quertus: OK, consider "character creation mini-game" as not referring to character creation in general, but the 3.5e "make the best character you can" mindset. Because it provides you with stronger tools for mechanical resolution later.

You know, from a certain angle, that sounds like disregard for the group, or an optimization challenge, rather than a character creation minigame.

To my mind, a less toxic character playing piece creation minigame would involve aiming for the correct balance range of the group, and determining how to actualize your concept and intended role within the rules and within the group balance range, ideally without invalidating anyone else's character / stepping on toes / overshadowing / etc.


Why, despite being my most successful massively multi-table character, who demonstrates the ability of a Wizard to not overshadow the party Fighter and Monk, does nobody else play Quertus, my signature tactically inept academia mage for whom this account is named?

Perhaps, more generally, why aren't their guides detailing background optimization, explaining which life events lend themselves to which character traits? Which parental personality attributes tend to produce which personality attributes in their offspring? Etc etc?

Darth Ultron
2018-06-13, 12:04 PM
I never thought of the Gygax/Arneson dichotomy to be a role/roll split.

Arneson was all about the character, and he even gets the credit for bring that idea to D&D. Gygax was always a ''wargamer'' that loved rules, tables and dice. Arneson was all about a setting with a story right from the beginning, while Gygax liked the more 'vague nothing'.





However, the "plan out a build from level 1-20" minigame that is, I think, nearly unique to 3e? That's mostly... hmmm... war gaming, or player skills, with a little bit of story demands? I think I'd label it player skills, which... could fall under... hmmm... anything? But I guess that those are war gamer player skills?

So, wait, if player skills can be accessed anywhere, what makes the Adventure Game component unique, again? :smallconfused:

Older D&D had far fewer options to pick from and did not stack and scale like 3E+ So you could not really ''make a build''. The vast majority of abilities were static and unchangeable: you got X at X level.

Though making a character is player Roll Playing skills, and system knowledge and mastery.

The ''Adventure game'' is player Role Playing skills and real life knowledge and mastery.

Roll Playing:
Player 1: "My character walks up to the guard and says stuff, I rolled a 22"
DM: The guard is amazed by your characters sharp wit and lets them pass."

Role Playing:
Player 1: Zorm approaches the guard with both hands in the open and says "Well met my good man guard, what a fair weather day we art having today. How art though?"
DM: The guard looks bored, and says "Just fine."
Player 1: Zorm :"Well, I say look over there I do spy a pouch of gold coins. Mayhap someone has dropped it? Maybe you, as a good guard could take it, and see that the right thing is done?"
DM: The guard nods, walks away from the door and slowly picks up the pouch and counts the coins.
Player 1: Zorm quickly opens the door, and looks back towards the guard.
DM: The guard is still counting the coins....
Player 1: Zorm walks inside and closes the door behind him!

CantigThimble
2018-06-13, 12:13 PM
Perhaps, more generally, why aren't their guides detailing background optimization, explaining which life events lend themselves to which character traits? Which parental personality attributes tend to produce which personality attributes in their offspring? Etc etc?

There are, but unfortunately these important RPG manuals are often mislabeled as psychology textbooks, or guides to writing characters for novels.

War_lord
2018-06-13, 12:21 PM
I mean, if a player wants to go the effort of writing up their character's entire life story, and figuring out exactly which formative experiences led to which character trait, and all that kind of thing. That's fine.

But my experience as a DM is that the people who do all that background work don't really end up with a character that's any better in terms of character contribution then the person who just wings it. Playing a character in an improv based game is not the same as writing characters for a novel. Having a memorable D&D character is about really putting the characterization out there when you play, because all that psychology stuff is just staying in your head.

CantigThimble
2018-06-13, 12:29 PM
I mean, if a player wants to go the effort of writing up their character's entire life story, and figuring out exactly which formative experiences led to which character trait, and all that kind of thing. That's fine.

But my experience as a DM is that the people who do all that background work don't really end up with a character that's any better in terms of character contribution then the person who just wings it. Playing a character in an improv based game is not the same as writing characters for a novel. Having a memorable D&D character is about really putting the characterization out there when you play, because all that psychology stuff is just staying in your head.

True. In the same way I really don't need to know *why* I like board games on a psychological level in order to act out liking them you don't need to know where a character's traits come from in order to act them out.

Picking traits that will work well in a game comes down to improv skills and the intuitive sense of "this group needs a straight man" or "this group needs a soul" and the ability to act that out in a way that is conducive to a fun and interesting gameplay experience.

However, there are some people who really do go deep on character motivations and there's definitely a place for that. Although that style tends towards play-by-post and text RPs rather than live games.

Cluedrew
2018-06-13, 01:03 PM
So, wait, if player skills can be accessed anywhere, what makes the Adventure Game component unique, again? :smallconfused:Well besides that the system is not finalised (it went through one major revision already, don't confused the two versions) it describes focus. So the adventure game is focused on player and challenge, but it doesn't exclude considerations on story or character. Or you could look that as being a mixing thing.


You know, from a certain angle, that sounds like disregard for the group, or an optimization challenge, rather than a character creation minigame.I mean I think mini-game means it is a game within the game. It is played by its own rules and can be played on its own (hence, optimization challenges). It can be played with varying goals and with varying levels of regard for the rest of the group.

Now I can think of different ways to approach character creation in line with all four types we have laid out.
Role-Playing Game: Create a character, interesting, flushed out, consistent and so on.
Story-Telling Game: Create someone who will have an interesting effect on the story.
Wargame: Create a piece with the abilities useful for overcoming challenges.
Adventure Game: I have two interpretations. One this is just the character creation mini-game being played for its own sake rather than particular usage later. The second is as in wargame, except with a focus on how you will use the abilities in this campaign instead of the more general applicability. The first feels a bit out of place and the second gets really close to wargame, so this might need some work.
Now the wargame version is the one I was talking about. And maybe I didn't need all this to explain why, but in my mind I don't think it is necessary toxic. Because "the best abilities for your character to solve problems" doesn't mean the highest damage. It could be healing if you are playing the medic or a medium amount of damage in a medium optimization game. So maybe best should be read as most appropriate, not maximum. Of course some people do read the latter and that can be a problem, but I don't think that is inherent.


Perhaps, more generally, why aren't their guides detailing background optimization, explaining which life events lend themselves to which character traits? Which parental personality attributes tend to produce which personality attributes in their offspring? Etc etc?Because that would either be a list of genre conventions or a rather large essay on sociology and psychology. Maybe not. There are some, I've seen several threads on considerations on writing characters of particular alignments, but they rarely are as detailed as the mechanical guides. Personally I think there is a simple reason: The amount of options and nuisances in character history and personality vastly overwhelms mechanical options and would take a similar increase in text to discuss as usefully.

I spend way longer on this post than I should have.

ross
2018-06-13, 08:15 PM
Game based Game:


Wow. Naming things really isn't your strong suit.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-13, 09:23 PM
Adventure Game: I have two interpretations. One this is just the character creation mini-game being played for its own sake rather than particular usage later. The second is as in wargame, except with a focus on how you will use the abilities in this campaign instead of the more general applicability. The first feels a bit out of place and the second gets really close to wargame, so this might need some work.
Now the wargame version is the one I was talking about. And maybe I didn't need all this to explain why, but in my mind I don't think it is necessary toxic. Because "the best abilities for your character to solve problems" doesn't mean the highest damage. It could be healing if you are playing the medic or a medium amount of damage in a medium optimization game. So maybe best should be read as most appropriate, not maximum. Of course some people do read the latter and that can be a problem, but I don't think that is inherent.

I have found the first one, just making a character just for the personal bit, is fairly common for optimizers. They just want to make the character, but don't really want to use the character in a game. They might want to use or do an ability in a game, but that is still a far cry from playing the character. And such a player is ''out of place'' in a typical game.

The second, ''adventure'' Roll Playing is very common, the player just wants to use the abilities, but does not want to really do anything else in the game. They fall into the typical Roll Player that are happy and active as long as it involves rules and dice...but then sit there and complain if any one talks for more then a minute or so.

And the second one does typical get very toxic. After all is the typical Combat Roll Player that wants to do nothing by endless mindless combat. It's all ready bad enough when the player just sits their quiet, unless there is combat...but it gets worse when they whine and complain unless there is combat....and it's a slippery slope to them just being a murderhobo and attacking everything.

While ''adventure roll playing'' can be things other then combat...it is often only combat.


Wow. Naming things really isn't your strong suit.

The curse I live under is even worse. I have to not type my first two or so names as they would be ''too offensive'' for some, and I have to be careful not to use the wrong word.

Cluedrew
2018-06-15, 03:53 PM
To Darth Ultron: On the first interpretation: well the extreme would be someone making a character for an optimization challenge and never playing it. However less extreme forms exist and it doesn't exist to the exclusion of other parts. I have some purely mechanical "pieces" that have notable bits of backstory and character I mixed in after the fact. I could make the same comment about the second/third parts, but instead I would again raise the issue that your player base is not representative of the larger role-playing community.

And now a summary of this new model thing I came up with. I have been thinking about some of the implications of the different parts, how they might trickle out and shape the system. Note that these are at best trends (at worst I'll have to fix it in the next version) and so will not always be true.
Focus on the CharacterFocus on the PlayerFocus on StoryRole-PlayingStory-TellingFocus on ChallengeWargameAdventure

Focus on the Character: The in world/game character(s) is in focus, the player just has to move it how it should be moved. - Shifts towards longer and more detailed character creation. More likely to have personality mechanics. Both so that the character has more detail on what they can or should do.
Focus on the Player: The real-life player(s) in in focus, the character is tool they use to act on the game. - Probably more open to "meta" or disassociated mechanics, making the character one of several tools. More comfortable with "fast talk the GM" type rules (or lack of rules).

Focus on Story: The unfolding story told is in focus, the challenges help shape and guide it. - Although free-from would be story-focused, sometimes story can actually bring in more rules as there can be more questions to ask other than "do they succeed".
Focus on Challenge: The challenges faced and overcome are in focus, the story helps connect and define them. - More in favour of strictly defined rules that have hard conditions and outcomes, so that the challenge and its conditions are clearly defined.

Role-Playing Game: Focused on characters effecting and being effected by the story. - In my mind one the classic mechanics associated with this are the character flaw systems that are encouraged to come up. Also if someone writes a bit complicated backstory and then pays attention to it, probably from here.
Story-Telling Game: Focused on the players creating/telling a story. - Gets towards meta-mechanics. Also mechanics that don't relate directly to the characters can become more common as we become more interested in things away from the characters.
Wargame: Focused on characters meeting and overcoming challenges. - The character's skill set becomes a big deal. The heaviest character creation rules of the quadrants. More abilities with "pre-canned" and straightforward uses.
Adventure Game: Focused on the players figuring out and beating challenges. - The old "what can you do with a 10-foot pole" stuff. Character is a tool-box, often a very flexible tool box if used correctly.

Tanarii
2018-06-16, 09:05 AM
In short Cosi said something about starting from challenges, I said you should start from story and we stopped but I was thinking about it and I think that this distinction kind of explains that difference in mind set.
Then it was a mistake to go into categorizing things.

I design from challenge. Because that's the thing I find interesting in RPGs. I'm not interested in traditional "story", and find adventures written by DMs that are "storytellers" to be boring. They need to go write a book instead. I'm interested in: Engaging challenges, reasons for the things going on so it appears to be a living world, and outcomes and consequences for decisions players make. I feel like designing around narrative structures destroys at least the last one, and possibly all three.

This is one of the few places I disagree with Angry DM, since I think designing adventures around story elements or narrative structure generally results in hot garbage. But I'll provide links anyway since it seems to be along the lines you're talking about:
http://theangrygm.com/narrative-structure-for-morons/
http://theangrygm.com/narrative-structure-for-morons-2/

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-16, 10:34 AM
I'll say this--I think there's an excluded middle issue here, or at least a third way.

I don't care about challenges. I tend to play games on the easiest settings, because I'm interested in the environments, the events, the people. Artificial difficulty (like most old Nintendo games) bugs me greatly.

I don't care particularly about "narrative framing devices" either. Those are often artificial and used as paint-by-the-numbers.

I do care about the potential for surprise. When I build something (either mechanical or adventure or setting), I want it to have the potential to be used in ways I didn't anticipate that still contribute and fit. When players come up with 3rd-way solutions that fit the world better than what I had planned, that enrich the shared environment, I win. When they force me to react to something I didn't have planned, and especially when that improv clicks with everything else, I'm happiest and do my best DMing.

Conversely, when everything's meticulously planned out and every avenue forseen, when the mechanical piece is a perfect cog that fits exactly in its place and never does anything unusual, I feel like I've failed. I'm left wanting more.

I want to see people taking the pieces I give and making something out of them that I never expected. The new Legos sets where everything builds together but you can't really re-use the pieces for something else are, in my mind, a waste.

I'm normally a very Lawful person, but RPGs are my outlet. New, different, surprising, fantastic. Those are the things I crave.

Edit: and that goes for characters I make. I want the character to have gaps, places to build and change, hopefully in surprising and beautiful ways. "Knowing the character inside and out" is boring to me. If I don't sit down to play and periodically go "wow, I didn't see them doing that before, but it makes total sense now", I've failed.

Quertus
2018-06-16, 01:32 PM
@PhoenixPhyre - I love it when people express sentiment that is almost identical to my stance, like you just did. I can enjoy challenge, and so feel no need to remove that component... and I want my surprises focused on the game, not the character... but, otherwise, what you wrote probably describes my sentiment better than anything I'd write.


Wargame: Create a piece with the abilities useful for overcoming challenges.
Now the wargame version is the one I was talking about. And maybe I didn't need all this to explain why, but in my mind I don't think it is necessary toxic. Because "the best abilities for your character to solve problems" doesn't mean the highest damage. It could be healing if you are playing the medic or a medium amount of damage in a medium optimization game. So maybe best should be read as most appropriate, not maximum. Of course some people do read the latter and that can be a problem, but I don't think that is inherent.

I mean, I think if I asked my tables to use 3.5 mechanics to build the "best" build that they could, I suspect I'd see pun-pun. :smallamused:

And moving away from damage doesn't help. MtG has plenty of possible decks, not all of which do damage, yet you still get plenty of toxic "best build or GTFO" sentiment that is such a buzz kill for what is otherwise such an enjoyable game.

But, making the most appropriate character? Honestly, I'm right back to focusing on personality more than mechanics. Sure, for Oceans Eleven, my character needs one of several skill sets, but he also needs to be the type of person who would do that type of thing in the first place. The former seems far easier to engineer / far more likely to happen "by accident" than the latter.

More importantly, it's great to tell a story about someone whose skill-set isn't exactly up to par, who has to struggle to accomplish their goal - it's great fun and a great challenge to run that character. It's another thing entirely to play a character whose motivations are shaky at best. It doesn't make for a good time, it ruins immersion, and it doesn't make for a good story when you're constantly left wondering, "what is he doing here?"

Cluedrew
2018-06-16, 02:30 PM
Then it was a mistake to go into categorizing things.How so? Honestly the best outcome here is we get a few terms that people can use to describe their preferences, we can help a few conversations about systems people like and move on. That doesn't strike me as a mistake. Unless you are referring to something particular in the angry articles. I haven't read those yet but I will make an effort to later.


I'll say this--I think there's an excluded middle issue here, or at least a third way. [...] I do care about the potential for surprise.Funny enough so do I. I was thinking about how that map onto this model (best guess: a correlation with player focus) but it probably is just orthogonal. It is a mere two measurements, there are others that are best measured on their own (potential for surprise might be one, rules complexity another).

Although it might still need fixing, so I will ask: Does this come at the exclusion of things on one of the axis? Is it instead of or in addition to? Because for me it is definitely in addition. Particularly in the story-telling section. Things being undecided is what makes it story-telling instead a story told to us.


But, making the most appropriate character? Honestly, I'm right back to focusing on personality more than mechanics.You are my "iconic" role-playing player here so I am not surprised. But still I have seen people who, in response to requests for build advice, ask about the rest of the party and use that as much as whatever central concept the player presented. Mind you I don't hang around build threads that much, so I don't have any good examples but I have seen plenty of variations of "how optimized is everyone else?"

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-16, 03:16 PM
Although it might still need fixing, so I will ask: Does this come at the exclusion of things on one of the axis? Is it instead of or in addition to? Because for me it is definitely in addition. Particularly in the story-telling section. Things being undecided is what makes it story-telling instead a story told to us.


It almost fits into story-telling, but the focus is not on "what makes a goods story here" (which can often lead to acausal events or narrative conceits that don't really feel right) but on "what fits the world right now? What does this say about the characters involved?"

I describe my style as "self-laying railroad tracks." Pick a direction and follow it wherever it leads. I don't run "this game is about doing X" games. I run "here's a starting point and a bunch of themes, what do we want to pursue right now" games where when one arc is finished, another may open up with the changes from that first arc. Unlike a true sandbox, it doesn't reward jumping between tracks--once you've chosen your train, you finish that arc (or abandon it completely). Compared to a traditional railroad/linear campaign, I have no clue where the tracks lead more than a few sessions out. I know the major threats along the way (the basic landscape), the "theme" (undead, dragons, weird twisted creatures, etc) and a starting point. The players and I together end up creating the tracks as we go, and it's never where I expected to end up except in the broadest sense.

It's about following the consequences to somewhere fun. Whenever there's a choice between possible consequences, picking the ones that lead to new things and that say "yes, and" to players, not the ones that say "no, nothing happens."



You are my "iconic" role-playing player here so I am not surprised. But still I have seen people who, in response to requests for build advice, ask about the rest of the party and use that as much as whatever central concept the player presented. Mind you I don't hang around build threads that much, so I don't have any good examples but I have seen plenty of variations of "how optimized is everyone else?"

I usually pick a broad "role" to fill, then build characters mechanically and let them speak to me. I'll pick the one that has the most to say, that inspires me the most. Usually I'll pick a "twist" for that character, something that makes them unique.

As an example, I built a few characters for a 5e game (using a module) that I'm playing in. I knew from the rest of the group I needed to play a support/skilled type.

So I built the following characters:

* Dwarven Nature cleric. Decided that his "twist" was going to be that he was a jeweler raised by gnomes, worshiping/serving a gnomish god somewhat unwillingly (grumbling about having to go adventure, arguing with his god, etc.)

* An arch-fey warlock (planned as Warlock 2/Bard X). This one had the twist of being a Disney princess, except male and a little less than pleased about the whole "animals love me" thing.

* A Celestial warlock (also bardlock). This was the dark counterpart to the one above. Her* twist is that she was actually a he that, as a consequence of his bargain (with a decidedly chaotic good celestial) ended up switching genders as well as getting a great voice.

This last one was the weakest, but once I had the basics, the backstory hit me and I ran with it. She's coming to terms with her gender flip and is generally a snarky, sarcastic person who wavers between having strongly-held opinions and being a bit of a coward.

I don't really know her backstory beyond "orphan in Waterdeep, raised by a cleric who sponsored him to a court-minstrel school. Failed out when his voice changed badly. Made a pact with a servant of X for a better voice. The adventure is his payment."

Darth Ultron
2018-06-16, 03:42 PM
I do care about the potential for surprise. .

This just is a personal style thing here. You like to 'somehow' not see something, so it will 'surprise' you. I guess you might really not see things, or you can pretend not to see them to get the surprise effect.

Really, 'surprise' just is not the right word. As a DM I do Like when a player does just about anything in the game other then boring roll playing combat. Like when the players come up with a plan that is not 'kill,loot, repeat'. Or when the players play attention enough to remember a bit of information or a plot point and use it in the game.

But it is in no way ''surprise''.



You are my "iconic" role-playing player here so I am not surprised. But still I have seen people who, in response to requests for build advice, ask about the rest of the party and use that as much as whatever central concept the player presented. Mind you I don't hang around build threads that much, so I don't have any good examples but I have seen plenty of variations of "how optimized is everyone else?"

I'm against the idea of ''building a party'' myself. It's bad enough that everyone has different idea of what the 'party' must have, but it is even more funny how the 'build supporters' suddenly will toss it away if they want too. Worse is the idea that some poor players are 'forced' to play characters they do not want to play, but are 'forced too' play.

And, it ultimately can be pointless and silly. Even if you have the 'perfect build party', it does not mean much unless all the players have the right amount of game, skill and personal mastery. After all, the 'perfect build party' can still charge into battle like murderhobos and get all the characters killed in the first half hour of the game.

Quertus
2018-06-16, 04:07 PM
You are my "iconic" role-playing player here so I am not surprised. But still I have seen people who, in response to requests for build advice, ask about the rest of the party and use that as much as whatever central concept the player presented. Mind you I don't hang around build threads that much, so I don't have any good examples but I have seen plenty of variations of "how optimized is everyone else?"

:smallbiggrin:

The roleplayers who taught this old grognard war gamer would be so proud to hear you say that.


How so? Honestly the best outcome here is we get a few terms that people can use to describe their preferences, we can help a few conversations about systems people like and move on. That doesn't strike me as a mistake. Unless you are referring to something particular in the angry articles. I haven't read those yet but I will make an effort to later.

That's just it - the problem is that these few terms seem inadequate. I'm a step or two behind the poster you're replying to, so I can't put my finger on it yet (I should probably re-read what they posted), but it feels like we should still be describing all the animals we've ever seen, not saying that all the world's animals can be categorized as cats, dogs, and ducks.

Cluedrew
2018-06-16, 07:24 PM
It almost fits into story-telling, but the focus is not on "what makes a goods story here" (which can often lead to acausal events or narrative conceits that don't really feel right) but on "what fits the world right now? What does this say about the characters involved?"... If the answer to "what makes a good story" gets you a bad story you obviously aren't answering it very well. Whenever I invoke the word story directly people seem to thing I mean following conventions and setting up overdramatic situations for later. A) I don't like that type of story myself and B) just go with the stories you like, formulaic or subverting or anywhere in between or off to the sides. People have some connotations around that I just don't understand. And if the story doesn't feel right it probably isn't that great of a story.

That aside your "self-laying railroad tracks" sounds a lot like my "dynamic collaborative storytelling", as in it could be a paraphrasing of my own description. I don't use that terminology, but the underlying concepts sound the same.


The roleplayers who taught this old grognard war gamer would be so proud to hear you say that.Their little Quertus is all grown up now. Anyways, I'm glad they would be happy to hear it.


That's just it - the problem is that these few terms seem inadequate. I'm a step or two behind the poster you're replying to, so I can't put my finger on it yet (I should probably re-read what they posted), but it feels like we should still be describing all the animals we've ever seen, not saying that all the world's animals can be categorized as cats, dogs, and ducks.Well... there are other terms out there. This is to add to that collection. And I don't know of any other terms that cover these distinctions.

(Roll/role-playing has been presented a few times, but that is been used as an insult enough its actual meaning has kind of worn away. Even going past that it means mechanical/non-mechanical most of the time and you can play in three of the four quadrants (wargame being the possible exception) leaning pretty heavily either way.)

I also haven't really found any cases where something that feels like it should be covered by this isn't. What I mean is all the other distinctions so far feel like they can switch back and forth while staying within one group, instead of pushing out to form another group. But then PhoenixPhyre and I haven't finished so maybe something will come out of it that. The other examples I've been able to think of have all worked.

On the other hand if you (or Tanarii) manages to put your figure on it I would like to hear it. The point is to make something people can use and if it doesn't work it should probably change. Maybe we should drop the quadrant names and just go with player/character-story/challenge focused. Or maybe player/character should be described as internal/external to the game world? Maybe that would be the more useful distinction or framing. I'm not sure but I would like to find it.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-16, 07:40 PM
... If the answer to "what makes a good story" gets you a bad story you obviously aren't answering it very well. Whenever I invoke the word story directly people seem to thing I mean following conventions and setting up overdramatic situations for later. A) I don't like that type of story myself and B) just go with the stories you like, formulaic or subverting or anywhere in between or off to the sides. People have some connotations around that I just don't understand. And if the story doesn't feel right it probably isn't that great of a story.

That aside your "self-laying railroad tracks" sounds a lot like my "dynamic collaborative storytelling", as in it could be a paraphrasing of my own description. I don't use that terminology, but the underlying concepts sound the same.

I also haven't really found any cases where something that feels like it should be covered by this isn't. What I mean is all the other distinctions so far feel like they can switch back and forth while staying within one group, instead of pushing out to form another group. But then PhoenixPhyre and I haven't finished so maybe something will come out of it that. The other examples I've been able to think of have all worked.


I think the distinction is really between pre-conceived stories (which is where the narrative tools/conventions/etc as well as the push-back come in) and retrospective stories. My "playing for surprise" category focuses on the second and dislikes the first (as a DM). As a player, I can handle a pre-written story if it's compelling enough and surprising to me. As a DM, it's boring because there are no major surprises.

My statement about there being a third way was really directed at Tanarii, who portrayed a dichotomy between challenge and "story" (meaning pre-conceived, pre-written stories). I can't "just go write a novel"--I don't know what will happen. I can't know what will happen until it does. But I'm also not playing for challenge.

Dynamic collaborative storytelling sounds like a good way to phrase it. I wanted something to point out that in my system they're both freer than a railroad (can go anywhere and start anything) and simultaneously more restricted than a pure sandbox (if they abandon anything for very long, they can't really come back to it without huge consequences that will make it a different scenario).

Darth Ultron
2018-06-16, 07:43 PM
(Roll/role-playing has been presented a few times, but that is been used as an insult enough its actual meaning has kind of worn away. Even going past that it means mechanical/non-mechanical most of the time and you can play in three of the four quadrants (wargame being the possible exception) leaning pretty heavily either way.)

I wonder why ''roll playing'' is consider an insult? Because Role Playing is the ''right'' way to play the game?

Like say you are a Wargamer number cruncher that cares only about the dice rolls and mechanical rules..and only even give your character a name as the rules say your character must have a name. And someone says ''your a roll player!", um, so what? You are a roll player...you sure not role playing. And you'd freely admit to not role playing.






Maybe we should drop the quadrant names and just go with player/character-story/challenge focused. Or maybe player/character should be described as internal/external to the game world? Maybe that would be the more useful distinction or framing. I'm not sure but I would like to find it.

You might need to do my suggestion of different levels of each part. All games with have some of each...but how much tells you the type of game.

A Classic pre '85 D&D 'Adventure' game is like Rules 3, Player 3, Character 1, Storytelling 1.

This game is very heavy on the game rules and the player, but has very little focus on the character or any type of story.

''Modern'' generic D&D: Rules 3, Player 1, Character 2, Storytelling 1.

Again, heavy on the rules, but with much more focus on the character...but very little on the player or story.

''Epic Story" D&D: Rules 2, Player 2, Character 3, Storytelling 3.

The rules and player take a back seat her to the character story.

And a non D&D Storytelling game: Rules 1, Player 1, Character 3, Storytelling 3.

The rules and player take a back seat her to the overwhelming character story.

Tanarii
2018-06-16, 09:29 PM
How so? Honestly the best outcome here is we get a few terms that people can use to describe their preferences, we can help a few conversations about systems people like and move on. That doesn't strike me as a mistake. Unless you are referring to something particular in the angry articles. I haven't read those yet but I will make an effort to later.
The specific post you made that I was replying to seemed like you were complaining that people were focusing on the wrong thing from your OP, as opposed to your actual question. I meant it was totally unsurprising they were focusing on your definitions instead of the question. That's what we tend to do around here. Quibble over definitions of Roleplaying etc. :smallamused:

I think the angry articles might be up your alley. He's talking about how narrative devices work in RPGs, as opposed to a person writing a book. Not my cup of tea at all, largely because I'm very attached to my preconceptions (and bias) that story means ... well, writing a story. Not playing a game that results in experiences, both in-universe and for the players, or a shared fantasy world. But (clearly) not everyone feels the same way about it as I do, and his articles on the subject generally seem like a good stab at explaining how to make solid adventures or campaigns or whatever based on underlying narrative structures. For those that want such things.

Cluedrew
2018-06-17, 08:20 PM
I think the distinction is really between pre-conceived stories (which is where the narrative tools/conventions/etc as well as the push-back come in) and retrospective stories. My "playing for surprise" category focuses on the second and dislikes the first (as a DM).So people where assuming I was talking about pre-conceived stories? I guess that makes sense, I'm not. I blame adventure modules for making pre-plotted campaigns the default in this regard.

I was going to say something else about dynamic collaborative storytelling but I think I am going to have to think on that one some more.


I wonder why ''roll playing'' is consider an insult? Because Role Playing is the ''right'' way to play the game?I don't know actually, I just know some people use it dismissively. Often in a way that does not quite align with its more well define meaning, hence why the usage wore away the term a bit. You would have to ask the people who use it dismissively as to why they are using it an insult and they might not be able to answer.

As for the degrees system, that might help. I was personally thinking of a graph idea, which I can't actually draw here but I think I would be very towards story focus and a little bit towards player. Sort of a ratio idea.


The specific post you made that I was replying to seemed like you were complaining that people were focusing on the wrong thing from your OP, as opposed to your actual question.To be fair I was, but then I took a step back and thought about it. The result of that thinking is what created this thread. And if it comes up again I can go back and say "I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I don't think that applies to me because...".

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-17, 08:28 PM
So people where assuming I was talking about pre-conceived stories? I guess that makes sense, I'm not. I blame adventure modules for making pre-plotted campaigns the default in this regard.

It's a common conflation (especially for those who don't like "stories"), the idea that "story" implies "pre-set" or "pre-written". Sad but true.

Nifft
2018-06-17, 09:46 PM
It's a common conflation (especially for those who don't like "stories"), the idea that "story" implies "pre-set" or "pre-written". Sad but true.

"The DM wouldn't let me murder his precious bartender, or all of the wait-staff, or the mayor, or the single mother who begged us to help find her kid. F'n rail-road storyteller with no respect for letting players do what we want!"

It's a problem which occurs when a DM uses a few video game tropes (e.g. having quest-givers at all), but doesn't want to run a single-player sociopathy simulator.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-17, 11:03 PM
It's a common conflation (especially for those who don't like "stories"), the idea that "story" implies "pre-set" or "pre-written". Sad but true.

You see it all the time on the boards. As soon as someone mentions the words story or plot, people immediately jump to ''pre done railroad''. The common wacky idea is every blink of a character must alter reality...and to have something like ''the royal jewels are kept in the royal vault " is railroading.

Quertus
2018-06-18, 10:34 AM
A 5th level D&D party is walking through the woods. Suddenly, they encounter a T-Rex crashing through the trees!

You win initiative. What do you do?

Do you attempt to hit it with your sword (or axe, mace, etc)?
throw yourself into the creatures mouth, to attack more tender regions?
attack the creature's teeth (or hold an action to parry, or otherwise attempt to negate its attacks)?
move into flanking position?
fill it full of arrows?
hit it with poisoned arrows?
shoot it in the eyes (or otherwise attempt to blind the creature)?
grapple the beast?
trip the monster?
run away?
run away, dropping caltrops/oil/marbles?
trip someone else, then run away?
volunteer to hold the TPK off for a few rounds while the party runs away?
shout orders to the party?
begin singing?
hurl fresh meat to distract the creature?
befriend the creature?
climb a tree?
hide?
drop an illusion that you are a pile of poo?
attempt to disbelieve?
scour the area for hidden foes?
fireball the area (or otherwise deal AoE damage)?
fireball the area (or otherwise attempt to set the woods ablaze)?
dispel the area / target?
cast buff spells on yourself?
cast buff spells on your team mates?
cast direct damage at the T-Rex?
cast BFC to slow the creature down?
cast Glitterdust (or just use a bag of flour) to flush out hidden foes?
summon creatures?
order your undead minions to "deal with it"?
cast... ?
pray?


So, what's my point in all this? Hmmm... I suppose my point is that, having seen or read about at least every one of these responses, well, even in what is ostensibly a war-game scenario, I expect mechanical build to matter somewhat, but I expect player skills will still be king.

I suppose I'm curious just what kind of game wouldn't be considered an adventure game under this schema... And whether any such game would be something I'd enjoy. Because I strongly suspect that any scenario that didn't feature strong player involvement / empowerment in making decisions that affect the course of the game - anything that isn't an "adventure game" - is not something that I'd enjoy.

Which, well it sounds odd for the, um, paragon/archetypal roleplayer / historic war gamer to make such a claim if you're dividing the game into a 4-way matrix...

Pelle
2018-06-18, 11:06 AM
I suppose I'm curious just what kind of game wouldn't be considered an adventure game under this schema...

It ain't what you do, it's the why that you do it...

Tanarii
2018-06-18, 01:04 PM
It ain't what you do, it's the why that you do it...
Making Decisions are the important thing. Thats both what and why.

Quertus
2018-06-18, 02:53 PM
It ain't what you do, it's the why that you do it...

I'm not sure what you mean. The closest thing in my experience is when I've tried to run high-level D&D vs low-level challenges / scenarios, where the questions aren't "can you succeed" and "how", but "who are you" and "what do you want". I hear tell that people have made it work in Exalted, but my attempts have always fallen flat. :smallfrown:

So, what do you envision such a game looking like?


Making Decisions are the important thing. Thats both what and why.

... Role-playing?

Darth Ultron
2018-06-18, 03:47 PM
in what is ostensibly a war-game scenario, I expect mechanical build to matter somewhat, but I expect player skills will still be king.

It is a limited example.

You could say it is ''player skills'' that are king....but what skills.

The Mechanics Game(aka Roll Playing/Wargaming)-The only skills that matter are game rules knowledge and mastery.

Event: Foe 12 (aka T-rex to everyone else), and Foe 12 has the exact stats of <looks up in rules> or rolls for the DM to tell the information. The important bits are low AC, lots of hit points, it's an animal with low intelligence and will save.

Character two(the druid) will be most effective vs Foe 12. Invisibility to animals will effect it 100% and Dominate Animal is even better as with it's low will save, the group will likely get a new pet. Or Hold Animal.

A melee fight is to be avoided...while super easy to hit, it will take several round to mow down it's hit points.

Character three(bard) might be able to fascinate it for a couple rounds as a distraction.

Any arcane spellcaters could use only spells to stop the creature that do no damage. Touch of Idiocy is a perfect spell, as only 2 points of intelligence and Foe 12 will be unconscious. Otherwise a spell that is mind effecting vs animals is best or a physical one that effects movement. Avoid necromancy attack and spells that need a fort save.

So this will be a boring and bland rules encounter.

Adventure Game The skills that matter here are the players real life skills. Like what might they do if this ''really'' was to happen in the ''real'' world, with no rules. Things like:

"Everyone scatter and move away to flank it from the sides. Tank Character, you are up..keep it focused on you. " The characters spread out and attack from a circle.

"Everyone hide"

"Ok, lets lead the beast back to the north where that ravine is and trick it into charging and falling to it's doom!"

Or the best:

"Everyone rush forward and CLIMB onto the monster...it can't get to us then!"




I suppose I'm curious just what kind of game wouldn't be considered an adventure game under this schema... And whether any such game would be something I'd enjoy. Because I strongly suspect that any scenario that didn't feature strong player involvement / empowerment in making decisions that affect the course of the game - anything that isn't an "adventure game" - is not something that I'd enjoy.

Well, would you enjoy the mechanics game?

DM:Surprise T-Rex
Player 3: My druid character Bob casts Hold Animal, DC is 18.
DM:The T-rex is held
Players: we kill it

Millstone85
2018-06-18, 03:59 PM
I think it breaks down like this:





Setting



Fiction
Characters




Storyline


TRPG






Deck Building



Game
Strategy Board




Dice

Cluedrew
2018-06-18, 08:26 PM
I'm not sure what you mean.I think Pelle & Tanarii were talking about it is why you make the decision being the important bit, not the choice you are presented with or (in some respects) the actual choice you make. At least in terms of this examination. Did you make a choice because it uses your character's abilities, because it fits their personality, it has the best chances for success or because you thought the result would be interesting? Just to pick one an example reason from each section.

To Millstone85: Maybe but I don't understand what you are saying, could I get more detail.

Tanarii
2018-06-18, 10:35 PM
... Role-playing?
Yes, that's what I said. :smallbiggrin:

Pelle
2018-06-19, 03:39 AM
I think Pelle & Tanarii were talking about it is why you make the decision being the important bit, not the choice you are presented with or (in some respects) the actual choice you make. At least in terms of this examination. Did you make a choice because it uses your character's abilities, because it fits their personality, it has the best chances for success or because you thought the result would be interesting? Just to pick one an example reason from each section.


Yeah, that's what I meant. The character may do the exact same action, but it's why the player made that decision (mechanically tactical, fictionally tactical, characterization of the character, interesting story) that categorize it as wargaming, adventuregaming, roleplaying, storygaming etc.

Maybe I misunderstood what Quertus meant, but it seemed like a good opportunity to quote Sy Oliver...

Quertus
2018-06-19, 07:53 AM
Yeah, that's what I meant. The character may do the exact same action, but it's why the player made that decision (mechanically tactical, fictionally tactical, characterization of the character, interesting story) that categorize it as wargaming, adventuregaming, roleplaying, storygaming etc.

Maybe I misunderstood what Quertus meant, but it seemed like a good opportunity to quote Sy Oliver...

Ah, there we go. Got it! For now - darn senility. :smallredface:

So... Um... Applying it to this thread... Where is the distinction made? Purely in how any given player approaches the scenario? Or is there anything more to it?

Are certain scenario inherently better for certain types of engagement - or, perhaps more importantly, are there pitfalls where one could design seemingly perfectly cromulent scenarios that actually leave some of your players out in the cold?


Event: Foe 12 (aka T-rex to everyone else), and Foe 12 has the exact stats of <looks up in rules> or rolls for the DM to tell the information. The important bits are low AC, lots of hit points, it's an animal with low intelligence and will save.

In a perfect world, the mechanics would match the fiction. No one should be shocked & surprised by somethings stats, IMO.


Adventure Game The skills that matter here are the players real life skills. Like what might they do if this ''really'' was to happen in the ''real'' world, with no rules. Things like:

I'm surprised that you missed the Jurassic Park reference of "nobody move".


Or the best:

"Everyone rush forward and CLIMB onto the monster...it can't get to us then!"

That is awesome to imagine!


Character two(the druid) will be most effective vs Foe 12. Invisibility to animals will effect it 100% and Dominate Animal is even better as with it's low will save, the group will likely get a new pet. Or Hold Animal.


Well, would you enjoy the mechanics game?

DM:Surprise T-Rex
Player 3: My druid character Bob casts Hold Animal, DC is 18.
DM:The T-rex is held
Players: we kill it

You know, I picked level 5 vs T-Rex in part because I figured SoD wouldn't really be an option. Silly me!

And, thanks to Pelle, I can fairly safely answer that, if that's all that the mechanics were involved, yes, I could enjoy the role-playing and player skills that led up to those mechanics, but, as I've said before (in this thread? Not sure...) I don't find the mechanics of RPG combat particularly engaging compared to war game combat.

Pelle
2018-06-19, 09:12 AM
So... Um... Applying it to this thread... Where is the distinction made? Purely in how any given player approaches the scenario? Or is there anything more to it?

Are certain scenario inherently better for certain types of engagement - or, perhaps more importantly, are there pitfalls where one could design seemingly perfectly cromulent scenarios that actually leave some of your players out in the cold?


Well, for myself I think I like what is described here as "adventure gaming". I also have players in my group that specifically like solving mysteries, which I think falls into the same category. So I personally like to design situations where the players are challenged and have to do creative problem solving to figure out the mystery etc. Not rolling Int to deduce a clue or Cha to convince the King, but rather letting the players figure out themselves what the reason is or come up with a convincing argument. As long as there is a game within the fiction where the choices the players make matters, I am happy to not having to invoke the mechanics. Like in navigating a political landscape, or planning a raid. Saying "our characters are more experienced than us, tell us what we should do" never feels satisfying to me.

Not sure if I understand correctly the terms here, but to me wargaming sounds more like what is the best action based on the rules, and more of a simulation of what the characters are capable of. So if a wargamer is playing Sherlock Holmes, the DM should tell the player who the killer is to make him happy? As for combat, there should be a game there, not just applying the best mechanics without making any difficult decisions.

I feel roleplaying/storygaming is going on in parallell to this.

Quertus
2018-06-19, 02:48 PM
Well, for myself I think I like what is described here as "adventure gaming". I also have players in my group that specifically like solving mysteries, which I think falls into the same category. So I personally like to design situations where the players are challenged and have to do creative problem solving to figure out the mystery etc. Not rolling Int to deduce a clue or Cha to convince the King, but rather letting the players figure out themselves what the reason is or come up with a convincing argument. As long as there is a game within the fiction where the choices the players make matters, I am happy to not having to invoke the mechanics. Like in navigating a political landscape, or planning a raid. Saying "our characters are more experienced than us, tell us what we should do" never feels satisfying to me.

I suppose that's why some GMs and players throw such a fit when a character actually has and uses some applicable ability (like Speak with Dead). To them, the character is supposed to just be a mask for the player, not some independent entity with its own personality and capabilities. On a scale of 1-5, these adventure game purists value Adventure Game 5, Story 3, Role-playing -1, War Game -5.

Ok, these words seem to hold value.


Not sure if I understand correctly the terms here, but to me wargaming sounds more like what is the best action based on the rules, and more of a simulation of what the characters are capable of. So if a wargamer is playing Sherlock Holmes, the DM should tell the player who the killer is to make him happy? As for combat, there should be a game. there, not just applying the best mechanics without making any difficult decisions.

I feel roleplaying/storygaming is going on in parallell to this.

Not to putt too fine a point on it, but the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game? I'm still getting confused on this...). War Game is interacting with the mechanics (optimally or not); role-playing is interacting with the personality of the fictional character (optimally or not). So, when you make a roll to search the desk, instead of playing 20 questions with the GM, or manually saying that you disassemble the desk down to every nut and bolt, that's the difference between playing a mystery as a war game vs an adventure game.

I think.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-19, 03:33 PM
In a perfect world, the mechanics would match the fiction. No one should be shocked & surprised by somethings stats, IMO.

Ah, but it is an imperfect world....and worse, imperfect games.



I'm surprised that you missed the Jurassic Park reference of "nobody move".

Yea, I avoided it like ''oh, we need some more teeth!"



That is awesome to imagine!

It's the sort of thing that happens in my games all the time, and I encourage it.

Years ago, back during the great 3X days, I got a d20 book called Dragons. And it had a nice page or so of ''new uses for the climb skill'' and one was Climbing on a Bigger Foe. I'm a big fan of action adventure movement and also colossal foes...so I've put the rules to use to this day. And, a lot of players love the rules to...they jump, climb, tumble, grapple, attack, dodge and more quite often on larger foes.




You know, I picked level 5 vs T-Rex in part because I figured SoD wouldn't really be an option. Silly me!


I was attempting to show Mechanical roll playing: the type favored by many players. They are just using 'character 1' to kill 'foe 12' all by rules and numbers.



Well, for myself I think I like what is described here as "adventure gaming". I also have players in my group that specifically like solving mysteries, which I think falls into the same category. So I personally like to design situations where the players are challenged and have to do creative problem solving to figure out the mystery etc. Not rolling Int to deduce a clue or Cha to convince the King, but rather letting the players figure out themselves what the reason is or come up with a convincing argument. As long as there is a game within the fiction where the choices the players make matters, I am happy to not having to invoke the mechanics. Like in navigating a political landscape, or planning a raid. Saying "our characters are more experienced than us, tell us what we should do" never feels satisfying to me.

Over several posts and threads about playing D&D has come the split between modern and classic styles of Role Playing Gamers.

The modern way, starting in about 2000, is all about detailed novel settings, detailed novel characters and detailed novel like game play. The characters have lots of history and personality that is then puts in the campaign. And the campaign has lots of history and personality that gets woven into the characters.

Like most modern fiction, everything has a ''need'' or a ''connection'' or a ''tie'' or something to everything else that makes sense. And is used to drive the game forward.

A classic and straight forward example is that each character had their family killed by the same bad guy...and now all the characters band together for revenge. The idea is to give the characters ''something'', some reason for doing anything other then Kill Loot Repeat. Assuming a player role plays their character...when they find Lord Evil that killed their family..they will charge off after them.

A lot of games, and very often D&D, can get bogged down with the players not really wanting to ''do'' anything or the players only really wanting to take actions out of greed. The novel stuff is intended to stop that.

The more classic game is the players get together and simply do whatever is in front of them: they want to have fun playing the game, but don't want to nitpick what they do.

This leads to the classic Adventure game: a group of characters that are going on an adventure for fun. Often they have little history, like ''grew up on a farm, and now they are here'', but can have full personalities. The characters, and players, don't need the huge push to go on an adventure: they just do.



Not sure if I understand correctly the terms here, but to me wargaming sounds more like what is the best action based on the rules, and more of a simulation of what the characters are capable of. So if a wargamer is playing Sherlock Holmes, the DM should tell the player who the killer is to make him happy? As for combat, there should be a game there, not just applying the best mechanics without making any difficult decisions.



The Mechanic side(''wargaming") are playing the roll playing game of all rolls and rules. The whole ''game'' to them is just that. They talk about rules, optimzation, rules, builds, rules, and more rules.

They are on the side of ''DM my character rolled a 17 on the intelligence check, so my character though of a clever idea....so DM, tell me what clever idea my character though of." And rolling past social encounters, puzzles and everything else.

It's fine way to play the game, even more so for short pick up games and causal games, but it does not appeal to everyone.

Mordaedil
2018-06-20, 04:21 AM
I was attempting to show Mechanical roll playing: the type favored by many players. They are just using 'character 1' to kill 'foe 12' all by rules and numbers.
Normally I'd respond to this with "nobody plays like that", but a friend recently made me listen to a podcast of some people playing D&D and it was just this with jokes between rolling the dice and it was the most dry, awkward way I've seen anyone play D&D and I worry you might be right in how it is how many people do play D&D now.

Pelle
2018-06-20, 04:58 AM
I suppose that's why some GMs and players throw such a fit when a character actually has and uses some applicable ability (like Speak with Dead).


Personally I don't mind Speak with Dead etc, unless the game is actually about deducing the answer from the clues. When a player likes solving mysteries, it is not having solved the mystery that is imortant, it is actively solving it that the player likes. If someone then uses Speak with Dead to directly get the killer, that ruins the fun for the player who likes solving mysteries. If finding the killer is a small step on the way to a larger goal it's usually not a problem, however.

It's like when the group wants to play a game where exploration and travel is the challenge, and someone brings a wizard with Teleport (win-button). That invalidates the game the group wanted to play. See powergaming, actually winning the game isn't important, but trying to win is because it is the process of overcoming challenges that is fun.



To them, the character is supposed to just be a mask for the player, not some independent entity with its own personality and capabilities. On a scale of 1-5, these adventure game purists value Adventure Game 5, Story 3, Role-playing -1, War Game -5.


For me, most of the time, the goals of the character and the player overlaps. So when trying actively deduce the answer to the mystery based on the clues, it is indistinguishable if it is the character or the player doing it. So adventure gaming doesn't interfere with roleplaying most of the time. And if it comes in conflict, say when playing a brave reckless paladin who wants to fight when it is tactically optimal to flee, you can choose what you value most. Being true to the character and staying is fine, and if he flees instead; hey, that's character growth! The paladin is not really brave and reckless anymore.

When you are roleplaying and adventure gaming you are trying to get into the mindset of the character and make decisions in 1st person based on the characteristics of the character. Method acting? I have more problems seeing how wargaming is linked to roleplaying. Considering the character as an independent entity sounds very unpersonal and further from roleplaying. With a more 3rd person approach of determining what this character would do, it feels more like simulating the actions of a playing piece to me.




Not to putt too fine a point on it, but the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game? I'm still getting confused on this...).


Yeah, I was doubtful when I wrote it and thought it might fit Adventure game as well. See, when I was younger I played a little tabletop miniature (war?)games. I played those as a board game, where the players were trying to win the battles. As I might understand it now, true wargamers play these types of games purely for simulation? So are they only cooperative and not competetive, then? Still, I see players playing against each other, needing refs etc. If it was purely simulation you could just as well do it solitaire instead.



War Game is interacting with the mechanics (optimally or not); role-playing is interacting with the personality of the fictional character (optimally or not). So, when you make a roll to search the desk, instead of playing 20 questions with the GM, or manually saying that you disassemble the desk down to every nut and bolt, that's the difference between playing a mystery as a war game vs an adventure game.

I think.

Yeah, maybe that's a good description of the difference. So that makes wargaming essentially 'roll-playing' then, no insult intended? For my own sake I like that player expertise trumps character expertise (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4238/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-rulings). If the character is looking to get into an appartment and wants to look for a key, the player saying "I look under the rug" should get a low Search DC (automatic success) if the key is there. If the player feels the character wouldn't do that (roleplaying), he can just choose to not look there. IMO, rolling dice should be when the outcome of an action is uncertain. If the players a specific enough to remove uncertainty, not rolling is fine. Whether they want to be very specific or not is up to them, and they also have the responsibility to characterize their character.

Quertus
2018-06-20, 10:22 AM
For me, most of the time, the goals of the character and the player overlaps. So when trying actively deduce the answer to the mystery based on the clues, it is indistinguishable if it is the character or the player doing it. So adventure gaming doesn't interfere with roleplaying most of the time.

There's a lot of stuff I really want to respond to there, but let me start here.

Usually, the goal of my character is to deal with the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible - to "power game". Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to get a better score, make more money, say the right thing, whatever IRL? So, for a murder mystery? My character would be all about Speak with Dead, because it solves the problem efficiently. And pretty much every character out there should feel the same way.

The problem is the players. Sometimes, the efficient course of action isn't as much fun for them. Well, and of course the problem is also the GM - sometimes, the efficient course of action ruins their story.

And so people expect characters to hold the idiot ball, or act out of character, to try to maintain a particular challenge, or to force a particular story.

Personally, I find that role-playing quite often interferes with what others expect from the story, the war game, and the adventure game. Of course, I usually blame other's unrealistic expectations, but that's my bias. :smalltongue:

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-20, 10:53 AM
There's a lot of stuff I really want to respond to there, but let me start here.

Usually, the goal of my character is to deal with the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible - to "power game". Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to get a better score, make more money, say the right thing, whatever IRL? So, for a murder mystery? My character would be all about Speak with Dead, because it solves the problem efficiently. And pretty much every character out there should feel the same way.


And that's a place we strongly disagree (especially the underlined part). Real people (which should inform our decisions about real characters) are anything but efficiency maximizers. People are only rational in the aggregate (and not even then except to a poor approximation). People I know often do what I consider wildly inefficient things in wildly inefficient ways even knowing "better." Part of it is a values mismatch--they value looking cool or adrenaline, or leisure or whatever more than I do.

I see students who minimize current effort (but as a result spend more effort for the same outcome, thus a reduction in efficiency). I know students who work really hard, but do so in a horribly inefficient way (memorizing specific examples when that's not what's being tested, for example). I know people who aren't motivated by objective outcomes (grades, scores, etc) at all.

If you can't recognize that not everyone is you and that people have different thought processes, then role-playing is going to be frustrating and limited.

Quertus
2018-06-20, 11:10 AM
And that's a place we strongly disagree (especially the underlined part). Real people (which should inform our decisions about real characters) are anything but efficiency maximizers. People are only rational in the aggregate (and not even then except to a poor approximation). People I know often do what I consider wildly inefficient things in wildly inefficient ways even knowing "better." Part of it is a values mismatch--they value looking cool or adrenaline, or leisure or whatever more than I do.

I see students who minimize current effort (but as a result spend more effort for the same outcome, thus a reduction in efficiency). I know students who work really hard, but do so in a horribly inefficient way (memorizing specific examples when that's not what's being tested, for example). I know people who aren't motivated by objective outcomes (grades, scores, etc) at all.

If you can't recognize that not everyone is you and that people have different thought processes, then role-playing is going to be frustrating and limited.

I never said that they were good at it - I was replying to what their goals are. Different statements, those.

Now, yes, different people value different things differently - but, whatever they value, they want to optimize, do they not?

So, if you expect a character to be invested in solving a murder mystery (which, do you expect them to be invested in that, if you present it? I'm not clear on that point), then do you not agree that the character will attempt to resolve the issue as efficiently as their personality, knowledge, and capabilities allow?

EDIT: And, regarding the underlined part, do you really feel that some characters should get incensed that another character tries to do something effectively? Do you really get mad at your mechanic when they use their knowledge to diagnose the problems with your car, and only fix what needs fixing? Or would you rather take your car to someone who does not show such disgusting power-gaming, and who just randomly replaces parts of your car with random things lying around until it happens to work?


So that makes wargaming essentially 'roll-playing' then, no insult intended?

War Gaming is interacting with the mechanics - very much roll-playing. Like a war game. Or Monopoly. Or chess.


So that makes wargaming essentially 'roll-playing' then, no insult intended? For my own sake I like that player expertise trumps character expertise (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4238/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-rulings). If the character is looking to get into an appartment and wants to look for a key, the player saying "I look under the rug" should get a low Search DC (automatic success) if the key is there. If the player feels the character wouldn't do that (roleplaying), he can just choose to not look there. IMO, rolling dice should be when the outcome of an action is uncertain. If the players a specific enough to remove uncertainty, not rolling is fine. Whether they want to be very specific or not is up to them, and they also have the responsibility to characterize their character.

So, IMO...

When Story and Roleplaying conflict ("yes, paladin, go assassinate the lawful king who hasn't done anything wrong"), the Story is wrong.

When Story and Mechanics (War-Gaming) conflict ("the story requires the vampire to dominate the mindless golems, and the permanently protected paladins"), the Story is wrong.

But when it comes to War-Gaming vs Adventure Gaming - to 'roll-playing' vs player skills - I don't really care. I just want everyone to be on the same page, and not have players complain that someone is "cheating" by having their character disassemble the desk to search it, or have someone complain that someone is "roll-playing" by having their character roll the search skill. Both are fine, both have their place.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-20, 11:16 AM
I never said that they were good at it - I was replying to what their goals are. Different statements, those.

Now, yes, different people value different things differently - but, whatever they value, they want to optimize, do they not?

So, if you expect a character to be invested in solving a murder mystery (which, do you expect them to be invested in that, if you present it? I'm not clear on that point), then do you not agree that the character will attempt to resolve the issue as efficiently as their personality, knowledge, and capabilities allow?

EDIT: And, regarding the underlined part, do you really feel that some characters should get incensed that another character tries to do something effectively? Do you really get mad at your mechanic when they use their knowledge to diagnose the problems with your car, and only fix what needs fixing? Or would you rather take your car to someone who does not show such disgusting power-gaming, and who just randomly replaces parts of your car with random things lying around until it happens to work?



It's not about goals. Optimization is a choice. And very few real people actually do it. Is posting here the most effective thing you can do with your time? If not, then you're not optimizing. Fundamentally, people are irrational. They don't think in terms of efficiency and optimization.

And yes, even a mechanic doesn't think that way. He's juggling a whole set of problems, many of which are conflicting. He's not a detached optimizer with perfect knowledge (as a character builder is), he's got a host of desires, values, goals, plans, distractions, etc. If you play your characters as perfect optimizers (or even as primarily optimizers), you're not playing real people. You're playing, at best, a caricature.

Quertus
2018-06-20, 11:26 AM
It's not about goals.

:smallsigh: The part I was replying to was very specifically about goals:


For me, most of the time, the goals of the character and the player overlaps. So when trying actively deduce the answer to the mystery based on the clues, it is indistinguishable if it is the character or the player doing it. So adventure gaming doesn't interfere with roleplaying most of the time.

So, um, yeah, we were talking about goals here.


Optimization is a choice. And very few real people actually do it. Is posting here the most effective thing you can do with your time? If not, then you're not optimizing. Fundamentally, people are irrational. They don't think in terms of efficiency and optimization.

So... I'm of the opinion that, in the long game, the net value of every single possible human action is exactly zero. Eventually, the world will end, heat death of the universe, whatever, and it will all ultimately be meaningless. So, um, yes, technically, posting here is tied for the most effective thing I could be doing. :smallamused:

But, again, it's a matter of goals. Goals are very much what we are discussing here. One of my goals is to get people on the same page on this issue. This particular post is the best I can do with my personality, writing skill / what my player rolled for my "create post" skill / whatever. I mean, I wouldn't intentionally post something that I expected to be less effective at my intended goal, no would I? Um... would you? If not, then you're just as much "power gaming" as everyone else.

If I'm wrong, however, and most everyone else intentionally makes less effective posts / posts that are less effective at their intended goals than they could... then the world is a much more baffling place than I imagine, and I'll need to investigate further.

So, which is it? Do you make posts that are as effective as you can, because you, like everyone else, "power games", or do you intentionally make suboptimal posts?


And yes, even a mechanic doesn't think that way. He's juggling a whole set of problems, many of which are conflicting. He's not a detached optimizer with perfect knowledge (as a character builder is), he's got a host of desires, values, goals, plans, distractions, etc. If you play your characters as perfect optimizers (or even as primarily optimizers), you're not playing real people. You're playing, at best, a caricature.

So, the discussion was about the goals of the player vs the goals of the character. This is a different conversation.

When I debug code, you're right, I'm not working with perfect knowledge. Being me, I attempt to gain as close to perfect knowledge as possible. I create test cases, place an elephant in Cairo, etc, etc. Historically, most other programmers I've worked with have been quite baffled by the level of analysis I put into such tasks. Which is why I am, quite frankly, better at it than most people I've met. And don't even get me started on the lack of relevant cognitive skills in the majority of the non-programming populous. :smallyuk:

Your character should have the goal to be a perfect optimizer - otherwise, you're playing a caricature, at best. But the difference between their skills & perception of the universe and God's is how they become a character. :smallcool:

Pelle
2018-06-20, 11:29 AM
There's a lot of stuff I really want to respond to there, but let me start here.


Please do.



Usually, the goal of my character is to deal with the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible - to "power game". Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to get a better score, make more money, say the right thing, whatever IRL? So, for a murder mystery? My character would be all about Speak with Dead, because it solves the problem efficiently. And pretty much every character out there should feel the same way.


No problem. If a character has Speak with Dead, I expect them to use it. I just mean Speak with Dead can be a bad ability to have existing in a game about murder mysteries. Just like the Loot Dungeon skill (roll once to successfully raid a dungeon, kill the monsters living there, and loot all the treasure) would be bad in a game about looting dungeons. It's the player who chooses to play a character who have the Speak with Dead ability, however.

I think this points to a problem with many rpg rules in general. Players take abilites for their characters that make them better at what the players like doing in game. But if the abilities they gain are too good, there is no challenge anymore (unless the difficulty is artificially increased). So if a player picks Ranger as class because he likes the challenge of exploration and foraging, those parts of the game easily becomes inconsequential and therefore handwaved. Thus the player see less time of the game spent on it, contrary to his intention.



The problem is the players. Sometimes, the efficient course of action isn't as much fun for them. Well, and of course the problem is also the GM - sometimes, the efficient course of action ruins their story.

And so people expect characters to hold the idiot ball, or act out of character, to try to maintain a particular challenge, or to force a particular story.

Personally, I find that role-playing quite often interferes with what others expect from the story, the war game, and the adventure game. Of course, I usually blame other's unrealistic expectations, but that's my bias. :smalltongue:

This can happen. I think it's more often due to players not understanding what they want themselves, or thinking mostly about themselves and not paying enough attention to what the others in the group like.

Pelle
2018-06-20, 11:47 AM
War Gaming is interacting with the mechanics - very much roll-playing. Like a war game. Or Monopoly. Or chess.


But in Monopoly or Chess you are trying to win using the mechanics, not playing for the simulation of a market economy or a battle. "the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game?"

In war gaming you are interacting with the mechanics for the sake of simulation. Or?

Quertus
2018-06-20, 11:59 AM
No problem. If a character has Speak with Dead, I expect them to use it. I just mean Speak with Dead can be a bad ability to have existing in a game about murder mysteries. Just like the Loot Dungeon skill (roll once to successfully raid a dungeon, kill the monsters living there, and loot all the treasure) would be bad in a game about looting dungeons. It's the player who chooses to play a character who have the Speak with Dead ability, however.

So, there's apparently a thread about this, that I'll probably insert my greatly divergent opinion into at some point, so, unless it becomes particularly relevant to this thread, I'll not duplicate such effort here.

However, I should point out that the player may not have chosen Speak with Dead - they may have merely chosen Cleric (or Dread Necromancer? Not familiar with whether they get that particular spell), and gotten the spell automatically as part of the package, even though they enjoy the idea of solving mysteries with Player Skills.

Or, maybe they don't enjoy using player skills (or don't have good ones), but do still love mysteries, and would love to War Game rolling lots of Search Checks and making lots of Sense Motive rolls. But, growing up on Father Dowling (sp?) mysteries, they took "Cleric", and accidentally killed their fun.


I think this points to a problem with many rpg rules in general. Players take abilites for their characters that make them better at what the players like doing in game. But if the abilities they gain are too good, there is no challenge anymore (unless the difficulty is artificially increased). So if a player picks Ranger as class because he likes the challenge of exploration and foraging, those parts of the game easily becomes inconsequential and therefore handwaved. Thus the player see less time of the game spent on it, contrary to his intention.

:smalleek:

Hmmm... When Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is so good at knowing/analyzing things, it removes that minigame, and Quertus feels awesome. :smallcool: When Quertus doesn't know about something, he has developed a huge suite of abilities to analyze it, gets to play the "Quertus learns stuff" minigame, and feels awesome for being so well prepared. :smallcool::smallcool:

When Armus has to figure something out... honestly, he usually tries to find some way to avoid that minigame. :smallyuk: But he gets to feel awesome for creatively acting in ignorance. :smallcool:

When Raymond has to learn something... he just eats the mind of someone who knows that thing. He 100% power games this particular minigame, so that we can get on to the "good stuff".

Yeah, I'm struggling to find a character who cares about something, who does not, in the course of play, improve their ability to handle such things, thereby usually limiting the amount of time that the player spends on the minigame. However, they will generally choose to play that particular minigame.

As I kinda say below, if, as a player, you are interested in CaS-style challenges for particular minigames, it sounds like something that needs to be engineered OOC. Which kinda makes sense - things for the player need to be handled OOC.


This can happen. I think it's more often due to players not understanding what they want themselves, or thinking mostly about themselves and not paying enough attention to what the others in the group like.

There is that. But, again, what should Father Dowling do when his player realizes that his wise character would have to hold quite the idiot ball not to use Speak with Dead?

Personally - and this is my bias - I think that the problem is in anyone having any expectation at all. The game should simply be, what will these characters with these personalities and capabilities do in this situation, with no expectation of a murder mystery with a particular feel. Unless everyone works together to engineer "a murder mystery with this particular feel" ahead of time. Because holding expectations that don't hold true to personalities/Roleplaying, or mechanics/War Gaming is just asking for problems / hurt feelings / etc.

Quertus
2018-06-20, 12:03 PM
But in Monopoly or Chess you are trying to win using the mechanics, not playing for the simulation of a market economy or a battle. "the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game?"

In war gaming you are interacting with the mechanics for the sake of simulation. Or?

I think you've lost me here.

My best guess is, you're equating "War Gaming" / mechanics / roll-playing with "Simuationism"?

While I certainly prefer RPG mechanics that map well to the fiction, the degree to which the mechanics map to the fiction is completely independent from the decision to engage the mechanics ("roll search") or use player skills ("I disassemble the desk").

So, am I even close to what you were talking about, or have I missed entirely?

Pelle
2018-06-20, 12:04 PM
When Story and Roleplaying conflict ("yes, paladin, go assassinate the lawful king who hasn't done anything wrong"), the Story is wrong.


I think thats misrepresenting what story means. I think a more relevant example would be:
Should this character assassinate the lawful king because that's according to his ideals, or should this character have experienced character growth and change his ideals because not assassinating would make for a more interesting emergent story?
Choosing to value story here wouldn't be more wrong per se, and can still be considered roleplaying because the actions are still what the character would do. The conditions for what the character would do is affected by what the player thinks is interesting storywise, however.

Quertus
2018-06-20, 12:12 PM
I think thats misrepresenting what story means. I think a more relevant example would be:
Should this character assassinate the lawful king because that's according to his ideals, or should this character have experienced character growth and change his ideals because not assassinating would make for a more interesting emergent story?
Choosing to value story here wouldn't be more wrong per se, and can still be considered roleplaying because the actions are still what the character would do. The conditions for what the character would do is affected by what the player thinks is interesting storywise, however.

I mean, I am biased by this (and many, many other) examples from my past of what people have said whenever they used the word "story". Yes, this was an actual example from my past, where the GM's story had needs - namely, that the party (which included a paladin) ignore their personalities and murder the king for money. :smallyuk:

It'll take a lot of conditioning to get me to view "story" or "doing things for the story" as something different from this.

But, still, have we not defined doing things for the purposes of the story such that this is a reasonable (if extreme) example of when Story and Role-playing might be in conflict*?

* Barring those who claim that you can't have a good story unless the characters are believable?

Pelle
2018-06-20, 01:20 PM
However, I should point out that the player may not have chosen Speak with Dead - they may have merely chosen Cleric (or Dread Necromancer? Not familiar with whether they get that particular spell), and gotten the spell automatically as part of the package, even though they enjoy the idea of solving mysteries with Player Skills.

Or, maybe they don't enjoy using player skills (or don't have good ones), but do still love mysteries, and would love to War Game rolling lots of Search Checks and making lots of Sense Motive rolls. But, growing up on Father Dowling (sp?) mysteries, they took "Cleric", and accidentally killed their fun.


If the player don't want the ability, he can always decide that the character don't have it anyways, even though he should RAW. Because the player don't want to, the Gods don't grant Father Dowling this ability.

If the player want to have the ability, and also want to use player skill instead, he wants two mutually exclusive things or don't know what he wants. Or, if he wants to use player skill, but don't have any, tough luck. Shrug.


I think you've lost me here.
[...]
So, am I even close to what you were talking about, or have I missed entirely?

My bad, I am trying to figure out what you/others mean by the term wargaming.

I tried to suggest that in combat, wargaming is trying to use the mechanics to win. According to you, that sounded more like adventuregaming due to player skill. So I understand from you (and others) that wargaming is just interacting with the mechanics. If this character would decide to try to do this, what will happen according to the rules? and then just applying the mechanics, i.e. a simulation, generating an outcome. Now, this doesn't match with Chess being wargaming however, where you are very much trying to win using the mechanics, player skill et al..

I don't see what the challenge is in wargaming yet. In roleplaying, the game is in trying to accurately characterize the character. In storygaming, the game is in trying to make an interesting emergent story. In adventuregaming the game is in using player skill to overcome the obstacles in the fiction. In wargaming, what is the game?

If it's just using the character's abilities to overcome obstacles according to the mechanics, the player isn't involved in any decisionmaking, and it can hardly be called a game IMO.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-20, 04:21 PM
Real people (which should inform our decisions about real characters) are anything but efficiency maximizers. People are only rational in the aggregate (and not even then except to a poor approximation).

This is very much true, and I say similar things all the time: not everyone is on the same page.




Now, yes, different people value different things differently - but, whatever they value, they want to optimize, do they not?

Yes, they want to...in theory. The big problem is that the vast majority of people don't know how too...and an even bigger number can't do it.

Just take something very simple like ''getting to the game on time". Everyone wants to be on time...in theory. And yet, some people will always be late. And I'm not talking about ''late by accident'', I'm talking about ''late by their own actions''. And it comes down to the simple: they either did not want to be on time or they simply can't tell time. Both are quite common.




So, if you expect a character to be invested in solving a murder mystery (which, do you expect them to be invested in that, if you present it? I'm not clear on that point), then do you not agree that the character will attempt to resolve the issue as efficiently as their personality, knowledge, and capabilities allow?

Well, murder mysteries are a whole other ball of wax. They are very hard for people. The average person does not have a 'murder mystery solving mindset'. And amazingly, most fans of murder mysteries like to read/watch them..and 'solve' them as the fiction leads them to the answer.....but when put in a 'open fictional murder mystery' they are at a loss of what to do.


If it's just using the character's abilities to overcome obstacles according to the mechanics, the player isn't involved in any decisionmaking, and it can hardly be called a game IMO.

Yes this is it. Technical it is not ''role playing'', wargaming IS roll playing, or ''board game playing'' or even ''video game playing''.

The wargame is all about the rules and mechanics and rules and more rules...just the game rules. It's like playing Chess and you say 'oh my king is named Ralph'....and then just play Chess. Or it's like poker...like how some people LOVE to tell stories as they play poker(''aka role play") but all that talk has no effect on the rules of the game(but might distract someone..wink wink).

The player is still 'involved' in the decisions as they make them, but they are just playing the rules of a game.

Nifft
2018-06-20, 04:46 PM
wargaming IS roll playing, or ''board game playing'' or even ''video game playing''.

Those seem more like judgemental invectives, and less like usable jargon.

Cluedrew
2018-06-20, 05:05 PM
On Mechanics: I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. (Maybe one we should run with, but that is for after this.) Is that mechanics is an independent variable with regards to the sections I laid out. Well not entirely independent, there are there ranges of rules-weight that tend to go with each quadrant, but they tend to be broad and overlap. You could have a free-form "who-would-win" game where you create some people and figure out who would win in some conflict between them without any rules that would technical still count as a war game in this model (even if it was about which group of first responders would do better in an earth quake)... Or course that doesn't pin much down.

So the best description I have for the character-challenge quadrant* is "focused on character skills". What can this character do to solve problems and overcome obstacles? Start worrying about what this particular player can do with them you head towards adventure game (most actual wargames would lie in that direction), start worrying about what this character would do and you head towards role-playing.

Mechanics are very useful in defining this question and answering instances of it, so it probably has the most rules-heavy tendencies of the four. But I don't think it is about that. So if the druid is capable of casting hold animal and stopping some charging beast, it may or may not be in character for them, probably doesn't lead do a very interesting situation and isn't a very interesting of player skills. But the druid can indeed solve the problem that way, so from this wargame/character-challenge perspective it is the correct answer.

Anyways, I hope that makes it clear, you can argue for a change if you would like but I can see people using mechanical/non-mechanical interaction in all 4 quadrants. Although an entirely non-mechanical-wargame is pretty far from what most people sit down and play it still exists and, perhaps more importantly, it isn't the line that separates any of the other groups so it seems odd to use it here.

* As it was conserved under v2 created about a page into this thread and I hold to this point. Could be convinced to change it if someone has good reasons why it should change.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-20, 05:46 PM
Those seem more like judgemental invectives, and less like usable jargon.

I don't see why, unless the person has other problems.

It is not wrong to play an Adventure Game like a Wargame or a Role Playing game.

And there is no Role Playing in the classic board games like chess or checkers.

And there is no role playing in video games..as it's just programed text on a screen. And when you 'click on a Y' that is not role playing.


So the best description I have for the character-challenge quadrant* is "focused on character skills". What can this character do to solve problems and overcome obstacles?

Right. Only playing the game of the rules. Door 2 is locked, but character 3 has the open lock skill of +5, so they will attempt to pick the lock.



Mechanics are very useful in defining this question and answering instances of it, so it probably has the most rules-heavy tendencies of the four. But I don't think it is about that. So if the druid is capable of casting hold animal and stopping some charging beast, it may or may not be in character for them, probably doesn't lead do a very interesting situation and isn't a very interesting of player skills. But the druid can indeed solve the problem that way, so from this wargame/character-challenge perspective it is the correct answer.

Well, a charging beast is not a good example. In any game the players/characters would want to stop it quickly. So any druid in any game will most likely hold animal, as it does stop the beast.

The bigger point is the Mechanical game is JUST about "How to stop beast 12 in encounter 12 using the mechanics and rules of the character sheets. "

The adventure game is more wide open for ''stopping the beast in any way possible''.

Cluedrew
2018-06-20, 06:36 PM
And when you 'click on a Y' that is not role playing.If you decided that that would be more in keeping with the character than 'click on an X', than yes it is role-playing.


The bigger point is the Mechanical game is JUST about [...]The more relevant point is "Mechanical Game" is not part of this system. All these games have rules and mechanics (it is commonly part of the definition of game after all). And all of them can have moments that do not interact directly with them.

Anyways, I have a very simple way to summarize I the model, it might miss some subtleties but:
Character-Story (Role-Playing): How does this character shape the story?
Player-Story (Story-Telling): How does a player shape the story?
Character-Challenge (Wargame): How does this character overcome challenges?
Player-Challenge (Adventure): How does a player overcome challenges?

I think the difference between player/character is pretty straight forward. I might have to talk about the difference between shaping story and overcoming challenges, but I think most people here should be able to get the general idea.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-20, 08:53 PM
If you decided that that would be more in keeping with the character than 'click on an X', than yes it is role-playing.

The point is that in a board game like chess or any video game, you can't role play.




Anyways, I have a very simple way to summarize I the model, it might miss some subtleties but:
Character-Story (Role-Playing): How does this character shape the story?
Player-Story (Story-Telling): How does a player shape the story?
Character-Challenge (Wargame): How does this character overcome challenges?
Player-Challenge (Adventure): How does a player overcome challenges?


Looks good to me.

Pelle
2018-06-21, 03:20 AM
I mean, I am biased by this (and many, many other) examples from my past of what people have said whenever they used the word "story". Yes, this was an actual example from my past, where the GM's story had needs - namely, that the party (which included a paladin) ignore their personalities and murder the king for money. :smallyuk:


Remember, this is from the perspective of the player/character, the GM isn't involved in this consideration.

So the player might consider: should my character do something boring, which would be true to her ideals, which would be stratigically advantageous, (and which looks to be according to what the GM has set up storywise, but that's irrelevant) or
should I rather decide that my character would do something completely different that will turn this into a more interesting story and a more enjoyable game for me ?

Yes, players who are trying to guess what the GM wants them to do (for the Story) and act accordingly could also fall under this. IME these players are just fooling themselves. I sometimes see my players trying to figure out what I intended for them to do, but I just try to set up interesting situations and am curious of which decisions they make.

Mordaedil
2018-06-21, 03:32 AM
The point is that in a board game like chess or any video game, you can't role play.

[citation needed]

Pelle
2018-06-21, 04:01 AM
On Mechanics: I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. (Maybe one we should run with, but that is for after this.) Is that mechanics is an independent variable with regards to the sections I laid out. Well not entirely independent, there are there ranges of rules-weight that tend to go with each quadrant, but they tend to be broad and overlap. You could have a free-form "who-would-win" game where you create some people and figure out who would win in some conflict between them without any rules that would technical still count as a war game in this model (even if it was about which group of first responders would do better in an earth quake)... Or course that doesn't pin much down.


That sounds like a simulation to me (although I might use the word differently than others here. At work, I put lots of parameters into a numerical model, and run a simulation to find out, given this particular input, what will happen.)

So what is the challenge in wargaming, making it a game? Trying to best figure out what will happen? In the free form example above the challenge is in evaluating accurately if being able to swim is more important than being able to fix a car is the best in an earthquake situation. Or is the challenge in coming up with sets of abilities in advance being able to handle different situations? Or it might simply be in evaluating the implications of the rules (what will happen according to the rules if doing this). Depends heavily on the situation and the ruleset if this is a challenge or trivial, though.




So the best description I have for the character-challenge quadrant* is "focused on character skills". What can this character do to solve problems and overcome obstacles? Start worrying about what this particular player can do with them you head towards adventure game (most actual wargames would lie in that direction), start worrying about what this character would do and you head towards role-playing.


So for the searching a desk example, letting the character's skill determine how it's done by just rolling Search would be wargaming. The character may be challenged, but there's no player decisions here though, and it's trivial to figure out what the rules say. So it's not really a game...



Mechanics are very useful in defining this question and answering instances of it, so it probably has the most rules-heavy tendencies of the four. But I don't think it is about that. So if the druid is capable of casting hold animal and stopping some charging beast, it may or may not be in character for them, probably doesn't lead do a very interesting situation and isn't a very interesting of player skills. But the druid can indeed solve the problem that way, so from this wargame/character-challenge perspective it is the correct answer.

Anyways, I hope that makes it clear, you can argue for a change if you would like but I can see people using mechanical/non-mechanical interaction in all 4 quadrants. Although an entirely non-mechanical-wargame is pretty far from what most people sit down and play it still exists and, perhaps more importantly, it isn't the line that separates any of the other groups so it seems odd to use it here.

* As it was conserved under v2 created about a page into this thread and I hold to this point. Could be convinced to change it if someone has good reasons why it should change.

I can see that wargaming could be in evaluating what will happen according to the rules for different options and understanding what the consequences will be (Fireball does this amount of damage to the t-rex, running is with this relative speed, trying to handle animal will have this DC). Adventuregaming would be the player trying to figure out which of these options are tactically smart and which are bad. Roleplaying is in determining which option the character would take in this situation (probably indirectly knowing all the things above). Storygaming is the player decides what the character would do in this situation, influenced by what the player thinks would be interesting.

MrSandman
2018-06-21, 04:36 AM
Yes this is it. Technical it is not ''role playing'', wargaming IS roll playing, or ''board game playing'' or even ''video game playing''.

I don't see why, unless the person has other problems.

It is not wrong to play an Adventure Game like a Wargame or a Role Playing game.

The main problem here is how you phrase it. You say that it isn't wrong and that you don't mean it in any negative way, but then you say that it is like playing board games or video games. This basically implies that you're not playing a role-playing game as a role-playing game. So you can't blame people from drawing the conclusion that then you're not playing a role-playing game the way it is supposed to be played.

This becomes worse when you use the term roll-playing. Again, you say that there is nothing wrong with roll-playing. The problem here is that the term is loaded with a negative connotation because it is used to accuse "those who play role-playing games wrong."

I think you'd be better off if you tried to used non-loaded phrases, such as "challenge oriented gaming" or "problem-solving."


The point is that in a board game like chess or any video game, you can't role play.

That depends on the game. For instance, I'm now playing Neverwinter Nights. It is far from the experience of a table-top role-playing game, definitely. But I'm playing a mercenary-ish barbarian who is a brute, wants money, and believes that if violence isn't solving a problem that's because you're not applying enough violence. That is what I use to base my choices in the game. I found a special card deck for this fortune teller who, as a reward, wanted to read my fortune. However, I insisted that she give me money, because that's what I'm in it for.

You can't role-play chess, you say? Well, you definitely shouldn't, but I can't help thinking of Reepicheep in the Chronicles of Narnia who places his knights in obviously dangerous spots because that's how he believes a knight should act.



Anyways, I have a very simple way to summarize I the model, it might miss some subtleties but:
Character-Story (Role-Playing): How does this character shape the story?
Player-Story (Story-Telling): How does a player shape the story?
Character-Challenge (Wargame): How does this character overcome challenges?
Player-Challenge (Adventure): How does a player overcome challenges?

I think the difference between player/character is pretty straight forward. I might have to talk about the difference between shaping story and overcoming challenges, but I think most people here should be able to get the general idea.

I've been following the discussion, and I'm still confused about what exactly you guys are trying to separate. I'm aware that it has been said that the different approaches in the model are not mutually exclusive, but the way it is dealt with in the discussion seems to imply that they exclude one another.

Let's talk about character-story and player-story. As I see it, it's always the player shaping the story mostly through their character. You can't have one without the other. One could say that it is a matter of emphasis, but I think it is a matter of balance. For the game to work, you need to take decisions according to what the character would do, but also that move the story forward rather than disrupt it.

You could argue that players may take decisions based solely or mostly on what their character would do, without much regard for the story. But that generally leads to a group that does not work. Like when you decide that your character is going to push the other character through a cliff in the midst of a battle because that character was mean to a waitress and that's what your barbarian with a twisted sense of just retribution would do. Or you could decide that your wizard is going to abandon the rest of the party and teleport herself with the treasure to a safe place because she sees the others as dispensable henchmen. But that sort of behaviour will cause problems unless the story specifically allows for characters to be jerks to one another.

The same goes with a focus on the story. If you have your character do things that she wouldn't normally do simply because it fits the story, you're going to have a character that doesn't particularly add anything. Her personality, desires, and talents will matter nothing.

So I think that you need to consider both aspects in order to properly play a role-playing game. Who is my character and what would she do? is as important as What is the story that we are telling and how can I move it forward? As I said, it is a player shaping the story mainly through a character.

I have a similar issue with the story/challenge dichotomy. It looks to me that it is more a matter of interpretation rather than of fact.

The character needs to convince the duke to send troops to the east border to protect villages from an orc incursion that nobody believes is going to happen. That can be understood as a challenge. It is a difficulty that needs to be overcome. The duke's disbelief is the obstacle, how can I win the scenario? It can also be understood as the story. The way we tell stories, by and large, requires some sort of complication to be overcome. My character's family lives in one of those villages, and she's got solid proof that the incursion is going to happen. She knows that the only way to prevent it is to have the duke send enough troops, so she does what she would do: she goes to try and find a way to convince the duke to send troops to the eastern border. How can she convince the duke?

Even a dungeon crawl can be explained in terms of story. You've got a bunch of treasure hunters who hear of rumours of treasure in an abandoned tomb and fight the monsters there to get to the treasure. Obviously this story is going to include a great deal of fighting and finding how to best kill all the monsters there, but it is a story nonetheless.

To sum it up, it seems to me that this model reflects ways to interpret role-playing games rather than different ways to play role-playing games.

Mordaedil
2018-06-21, 04:52 AM
That depends on the game. For instance, I'm now playing Neverwinter Nights. It is far from the experience of a table-top role-playing game, definitely. But I'm playing a mercenary-ish barbarian who is a brute, wants money, and believes that if violence isn't solving a problem that's because you're not applying enough violence. That is what I use to base my choices in the game. I found a special card deck for this fortune teller who, as a reward, wanted to read my fortune. However, I insisted that she give me money, because that's what I'm in it for.

You can't role-play chess, you say? Well, you definitely shouldn't, but I can't help thinking of Reepicheep in the Chronicles of Narnia who places his knights in obviously dangerous spots because that's how he believes a knight should act.
Neverwinter Nights is even more special online, where you can pretty much literally do anything, as long as you have players to entertain as a DM. You can control NPCs, make new maps, change things, create magic items and have large scale conflicts and your actions can change the shape of the world if the owner allows you.

In an old server I played on the drow faction on the server invaded and took over the starter town, and thus drow guards were posted all over, the area became covered in darkness, the NPC's were killed and strung up as a warning, buildings went derelict and sold stuff uniquely to evil PC's and the starting location got moved to the neutral large city.

It seems ridiculous claim to me to insist that roleplaying is impossible in such an environment, where you can anything as long as everyone agrees to it.

Cluedrew
2018-06-21, 08:00 AM
I've been following the discussion, and I'm still confused about what exactly you guys are trying to separate. I'm aware that it has been said that the different approaches in the model are not mutually exclusive, but the way it is dealt with in the discussion seems to imply that they exclude one another.First, even I'm confused about some of this, it is a work in progress. But I think I have a lot worked out. Second, yeah the discussion tends to talk about them one at a time, but they were never meant to be exclusive from one another. For instance:


So for the searching a desk example, letting the character's skill determine how it's done by just rolling Search would be wargaming. The character may be challenged, but there's no player decisions here though, and it's trivial to figure out what the rules say. So it's not really a game...At its most extreme it probably wouldn't be. Outside of character creation that is, so I guess the game would be setting the parameters for a simulation. But I don't know of any role-playing systems that are even close to pure wargaming (or pure role-playing for that matter), even if it is the largest group is that with four things it can easily be less than half.


Let's talk about character-story and player-story. As I see it, it's always the player shaping the story mostly through their character. You can't have one without the other. One could say that it is a matter of emphasis, but I think it is a matter of balance. For the game to work, you need to take decisions according to what the character would do, but also that move the story forward rather than disrupt it.Possibly? But at the same time the point of balance isn't always the same. It changes with groups and situations and I just checked the clock and I am running out of time so I will have to elaborate at a later date.

MrSandman
2018-06-21, 08:58 AM
Possibly? But at the same time the point of balance isn't always the same. It changes with groups and situations and I just checked the clock and I am running out of time so I will have to elaborate at a later date.

I'm looking forward to your further elaboration.

Regarding the player-character, I guess what I meant to say is that, as I see it, it's the same as cats and mammals. All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats. In the same way, all ways in which the character shapes the story are ways in which the player shapes the story, but not all ways in which the player shapes the story are through a character.

Tanarii
2018-06-21, 11:02 AM
Neverwinter Nights is even more special online, where you can pretty much literally do anything, as long as you have players to entertain as a DM. You can control NPCs, make new maps, change things, create magic items and have large scale conflicts and your actions can change the shape of the world if the owner allows you.

In an old server I played on the drow faction on the server invaded and took over the starter town, and thus drow guards were posted all over, the area became covered in darkness, the NPC's were killed and strung up as a warning, buildings went derelict and sold stuff uniquely to evil PC's and the starting location got moved to the neutral large city.

It seems ridiculous claim to me to insist that roleplaying is impossible in such an environment, where you can anything as long as everyone agrees to it.
It's certainly not impossible. I did some extremely heavy characterization on a NWN server. But it took multiple "DMs" doing programming to have "storyline" events for the entire server to participate in, putting in far more man-hours to do far less than I can do by myself for a similar number of players in a TRPG. Even a single DM running a impromptu live scenario for a single PC group while they're out exploring the world took as much prep time as a TRPG.

Quertus
2018-06-21, 11:43 AM
Yes, they want to...in theory. The big problem is that the vast majority of people don't know how too...and an even bigger number can't do it.

Just take something very simple like ''getting to the game on time". Everyone wants to be on time...in theory. And yet, some people will always be late. And I'm not talking about ''late by accident'', I'm talking about ''late by their own actions''. And it comes down to the simple: they either did not want to be on time or they simply can't tell time. Both are quite common.

And "want to" was - and should remain - the only thing under discussion in a conversation about player goals vs character goals.


Well, murder mysteries are a whole other ball of wax. They are very hard for people. The average person does not have a 'murder mystery solving mindset'. And amazingly, most fans of murder mysteries like to read/watch them..and 'solve' them as the fiction leads them to the answer.....but when put in a 'open fictional murder mystery' they are at a loss of what to do.

One's capabilities may not support one's goals. And?


Remember, this is from the perspective of the player/character, the GM isn't involved in this consideration.

So the player might consider: should my character do something boring, which would be true to her ideals, which would be stratigically advantageous, (and which looks to be according to what the GM has set up storywise, but that's irrelevant) or
should I rather decide that my character would do something completely different that will turn this into a more interesting story and a more enjoyable game for me ?

Yes, players who are trying to guess what the GM wants them to do (for the Story) and act accordingly could also fall under this. IME these players are just fooling themselves. I sometimes see my players trying to figure out what I intended for them to do, but I just try to set up interesting situations and am curious of which decisions they make.

I need to think on this further, but... is there a difference between "story" and "metagaming"?


Let's talk about character-story and player-story. As I see it, it's always the player shaping the story mostly through their character. You can't have one without the other. One could say that it is a matter of emphasis, but I think it is a matter of balance. For the game to work, you need to take decisions according to what the character would do, but also that move the story forward rather than disrupt it.

To sum it up, it seems to me that this model reflects ways to interpret role-playing games rather than different ways to play role-playing games.


I'm looking forward to your further elaboration.

Regarding the player-character, I guess what I meant to say is that, as I see it, it's the same as cats and mammals. All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats. In the same way, all ways in which the character shapes the story are ways in which the player shapes the story, but not all ways in which the player shapes the story are through a character.


Anyways, I have a very simple way to summarize I the model, it might miss some subtleties but:
Character-Story (Role-Playing): How does this character shape the story?
Player-Story (Story-Telling): How does a player shape the story?
Character-Challenge (Wargame): How does this character overcome challenges?
Player-Challenge (Adventure): How does a player overcome challenges?

I think the difference between player/character is pretty straight forward. I might have to talk about the difference between shaping story and overcoming challenges, but I think most people here should be able to get the general idea.

Well, the discussion I was having with Pelle was, IIRC, centered around evaluating whether the player's goals for the story and the character's goals for the story were always in alignment. ... Yes, here was the quote:


For me, most of the time, the goals of the character and the player overlaps. So when trying actively deduce the answer to the mystery based on the clues, it is indistinguishable if it is the character or the player doing it. So adventure gaming doesn't interfere with roleplaying most of the time.

Certainly, a D&D character will have a different set of perspectives and objectives than their player. Or can, at any rate. For example, someone roleplaying me investigating why a game went wrong? They'd start with the GM, obviously. Whereas that same player roleplaying someone else may be wrong-minded less biased, and start their investigation somewhere else. :smalltongue:

So, I suspect that the player affecting the story can easily have a different feel than the character affecting the story. Just like there's a difference between rolling search and manually disassembling the desk. Oh, and that example seems good for talking about what range the group accepts for the balance between player and character, too.

I only hope Cluedrew's response indicates that I'm barking up the right tree here. Well, if not, it means I get to learn something. :smallwink:

But, I, too, seem to be out of time. :smallfrown:

MrSandman
2018-06-21, 12:16 PM
Well, the discussion I was having with Pelle was, IIRC, centered around evaluating whether the player's goals for the story and the character's goals for the story were always in alignment. ...

Certainly, a D&D character will have a different set of perspectives and objectives than their player. Or can, at any rate. For example, someone roleplaying me investigating why a game went wrong? They'd start with the GM, obviously. Whereas that same player roleplaying someone else may be wrong-minded less biased, and start their investigation somewhere else. :smalltongue:

So, I suspect that the player affecting the story can easily have a different feel than the character affecting the story. Just like there's a difference between rolling search and manually disassembling the desk. Oh, and that example seems good for talking about what range the group accepts for the balance between player and character, too.

What I don't get, though, is how they are supposed to be opposite ends of a spectrum (if that's what you mean).

Let's say I play this one character. She wants to conquer the world. I want her to fall down because of her overgrown pride. Sometimes, I'll have her do something she knows will work against her because it goes according to her personality, sometimes, even if I know that a particular action will work against her goal, I'll still have her take it because I honestly think she would believe it's a good idea, and sometimes I'll have her take actions that bring her closer to total world domination because that's what she wants.
All three scenarios have in common that it is me affecting the story through my character. Whosever goals that may work towards is irrelevant. Even my character's goals are ultimately mine, as my purpose is that she should pursue said goals.

As I see it, character and player cannot be opposite ends of a spectrum because they work at different levels.

About the rolling vs. describing where and how the character looks for something, both of them sound like a mechanic to decide the success or failure of an action to me. One is based on a dice roll plus a score defining the character's ability, the other one is based on the player's ability to read the game master's mind, but both of them are a mechanic to decide the outcome of an action.

Unless I am not understanding you properly or missing something?

Darth Ultron
2018-06-21, 01:42 PM
So what is the challenge in wargaming, making it a game?

To win the game using the rules. It's like playing Checkers. For a game like D&D it's ''winning'' the adventure by finishing it.



So for the searching a desk example, letting the character's skill determine how it's done by just rolling Search would be wargaming. The character may be challenged, but there's no player decisions here though, and it's trivial to figure out what the rules say. So it's not really a game...

It is a game, it is a roll playing or mechanical game. The player still makes decision of when and how to use the game rules, but that is about it.




I can see that wargaming could be in evaluating what will happen according to the rules for different options and understanding what the consequences will be (Fireball does this amount of damage to the t-rex, running is with this relative speed, trying to handle animal will have this DC). Adventuregaming would be the player trying to figure out which of these options are tactically smart and which are bad. Roleplaying is in determining which option the character would take in this situation (probably indirectly knowing all the things above). Storygaming is the player decides what the character would do in this situation, influenced by what the player thinks would be interesting.

Yes.


The main problem here is how you phrase it. You say that it isn't wrong and that you don't mean it in any negative way, but then you say that it is like playing board games or video games. This basically implies that you're not playing a role-playing game as a role-playing game. So you can't blame people from drawing the conclusion that then you're not playing a role-playing game the way it is supposed to be played.

The problem is that people, like your self read things that are not there and imply things to yourself.



That depends on the game. For instance, I'm now playing Neverwinter Nights.

You can write a whole novel about your video game character, but it has no effect on the game. When you play the game, you are still just pressing a button. I guess you can read the novel before you push a button, but that is not role playing.



You can't role-play chess, you say? Well, you definitely shouldn't, but I can't help thinking of Reepicheep in the Chronicles of Narnia who places his knights in obviously dangerous spots because that's how he believes a knight should act.

Again, still not role playing.



Let's talk about character-story and player-story. As I see it, it's always the player shaping the story mostly through their character. You can't have one without the other. One could say that it is a matter of emphasis, but I think it is a matter of balance. For the game to work, you need to take decisions according to what the character would do, but also that move the story forward rather than disrupt it.


It's true that a Fair and Balanced game will have a bit of each, but that will not be true for all games.



It seems ridiculous claim to me to insist that roleplaying is impossible in such an environment, where you can anything as long as everyone agrees to it.

As someone who does not play video games, is ''neverwinter nights'' a video game? Or is it something else? If your playing a game in real time with other people in an environment, is that a 'video game'? Are you applying 'video game' to 'any electronic game'?



At its most extreme it probably wouldn't be. Outside of character creation that is, so I guess the game would be setting the parameters for a simulation. But I don't know of any role-playing systems that are even close to pure wargaming (or pure role-playing for that matter), even if it is the largest group is that with four things it can easily be less than half.

Well, 1E D&D and most retro clones are close to pure wargaming. You make a mechanical character to go on a mechanical adventure.

Savage Worlds, Apocalypse Engine, and the Saga System are close to pure role playing. You make a deep role playing character and play in a very loose mechanical framework.

So like take 1E played this way: Player ''My character walks forward twenty feet, turns to the north, and opens the door" Player moves the miniature on the game map. "My character now uses this Open Door ability-I rolled a 16" DM-Your character opens the door.

Or the Game like: Player(with character with just 'skill +2' "Zor walks over to the door and tries to open it using his lockpick in his left hand. DM(making stuff up out of thin air) "Ok, easy task, roll a 6" Player "I rolled a 10" DM-"It's open"


I'm looking forward to your elaboration.


The focus of a game has a huge effect on the game play. An average game will be all ''2'' on a 3 scale of each focus. But few games are ''average"

For a three of each:
Character-Story (Role-Playing): The game only cares about the role playing character in the story. The rules don't matter at all, and what the player thinks or feels does not matter at all. This game has whatever is wanted, ignoring the rules. And a player will role play a character, no matter what, even if the player 'knows better'.
Player-Story (Story-Telling): The game cares about the players telling a story. The rules and the characters don't matter. Again the story is king, but here the focus is on the player making the call and using the character to make a good story.
Character-Challenge (Wargame):The game cares about the rules and the challenge of the mechanical character. The role play character and the story don't matter.
Player-Challenge (Adventure): The game cares about the challenge to the players, with the rules/mechanics and story not mattering.

MrSandman
2018-06-21, 02:15 PM
The problem is that people, like your self read things that are not there and imply things to yourself.

Hey, suit yourself. I thought you were trying to have some sort of meaningful communication here, but if you don't care what other people understand, by all means, do continue to ignore how particular phrases are used and how loaded particular words are. Just don't get surprised when people don't understand your exact shade of meaning.



You can write a whole novel about your video game character, but it has no effect on the game. When you play the game, you are still just pressing a button. I guess you can read the novel before you push a button, but that is not role playing.

Again, still not role playing.


How is pressing a button different that uttering a word for that purpose?
What is the difference between me pushing a particular button to have my character do a particular thing in a computer game and uttering a particular string of words to have my character do a particular thing in a tabletop role-playing game?

I find your statements rather puzzling in light of these two paragraphs:


And right here, literally right at the beginning of D&D is the split: Roll Playing vs Role Playing. Dave was on the side of Role Playing, and Gary was on the side of Roll Playing. And, as anyone can tell you, Gary's side was much more dominant in D&D. While D&D was called a ''role playing game'', it was a very light role playing game. Gary loved charts and tables and dice: and so D&D was full of them. Role Playing as in 'acting out a character' took a huge back seat to the Roll Playing of dice, mechanics and tables.

And in 2018, the split is still alive and well. As a ton of gamers where not even alive when the game was created, it does just seem to be a natural split between personalities. And even today, you have the gamers that what a deep immersion role playing game and the players that want a deep rule roll playing game.


According to them, it would seem that role-playing is basically playing a role, or as you say "acting out a character." If you can act out a character in a game,why wouldn't that be role-playing? Or maybe you're using English language in a different way than the rest of the world again and you mean something else?



Character-Story (Role-Playing): The game only cares about the role playing character in the story. The rules don't matter at all, and what the player thinks or feels does not matter at all. This game has whatever is wanted, ignoring the rules. And a player will role play a character, no matter what, even if the player 'knows better'.
Player-Story (Story-Telling): The game cares about the players telling a story. The rules and the characters don't matter. Again the story is king, but here the focus is on the player making the call and using the character to make a good story.


But my contention here is that "Player-Story" will always underlie "Character-Story." You can't have a player role-playing a character no matter what unless that is the call that the player is making.

Cluedrew
2018-06-21, 02:18 PM
I'm looking forward to your further elaboration.Hopefully it lives up to your expectations.

I'm going to open up with a player/character conflict that I had once as an example. I was playing Kelly, an old mercenary who had been described as "having seen everything and surprised by nothing". That was working fine until I came to the base camp of another PC which was... surprising to say the least. I was faced with a choice:
Pick Role-Playing: Stay true to my character as they have so far been established and continue as before with no more than a quick look around.
Pick Story-Telling: Have Kelly be shocked to reinforce the other PC's character and the difference between these two.
Now because it wasn't particularly out-of-character I decided to have Kelly be shocked and adjust the character a bit on the fly. But at the same time if a more character-focused player was playing Kelly, a double blink might all that have happened.

While consistent and interesting characterisation is important in story-telling in role-playing its the point. It wins out of most other considerations handily. To me that is the key difference. Many of the results are similar, but there is a mindset difference that anyone who has talked long enough with Quertus will have noticed.

Also I think that I will have to extend my comment about how taken to an extreme wargaming becomes a kind of simulation. That is a feature of the entire character-focused edge of the box. I don't know many games that go close to that edge though.


Regarding the player-character, I guess what I meant to say is that, as I see it, it's the same as cats and mammals. All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats. In the same way, all ways in which the character shapes the story are ways in which the player shapes the story, but not all ways in which the player shapes the story are through a character.That is also true. Actually I got the names for these two groups from an article that talked about the difference between role-playing games and story-telling games and described the former as a particular kind of the latter.

That is just thinking about tools. In terms of goals you get something similar (see the bit about characterisation above). But in terms of... the central question (that summary I wrote 2 posts ago) they aren't, but that might not be the best way to talk about it. There are some fuzzy edges in my head but figuring out a good way to present this is the real reason I keep saying "so far" as I describe the system.

Quertus
2018-06-21, 02:32 PM
.My bad, I am trying to figure out what you/others mean by the term wargaming.


What I don't get, though, is how they are supposed to be opposite ends of a spectrum (if that's what you mean).

As I see it, character and player cannot be opposite ends of a spectrum because they work at different levels.

About the rolling vs. describing where and how the character looks for something, both of them sound like a mechanic to decide the success or failure of an action to me. One is based on a dice roll plus a score defining the character's ability, the other one is based on the player's ability to read the game master's mind, but both of them are a mechanic to decide the outcome of an action.

Unless I am not understanding you properly or missing something?

So, I tend to alienate between making statements and asking questions in part as my belief that I know what's going on wanes and waxes.

So, currently, I'm going to be asking questions.

I take it that you are asserting that player desires and character desires aren't at the same level like food being sweet / sour / salty / bitter, but at different levels, like sweet vs cold?

But, otoh, engaging challenges as player vs character are at the same level?


I tried to suggest that in combat, wargaming is trying to use the mechanics to win. According to you, that sounded more like adventuregaming due to player skill. So I understand from you (and others) that wargaming is just interacting with the mechanics. If this character would decide to try to do this, what will happen according to the rules? and then just applying the mechanics, i.e. a simulation, generating an outcome. Now, this doesn't match with Chess being wargaming however, where you are very much trying to win using the mechanics, player skill et al..

I don't see what the challenge is in wargaming yet. In roleplaying, the game is in trying to accurately characterize the character. In storygaming, the game is in trying to make an interesting emergent story. In adventuregaming the game is in using player skill to overcome the obstacles in the fiction. In wargaming, what is the game?

If it's just using the character's abilities to overcome obstacles according to the mechanics, the player isn't involved in any decisionmaking, and it can hardly be called a game IMO.

Yeah, I think I'm still a bit confused on which level(s) we're defining...

MrSandman
2018-06-21, 03:18 PM
So, I tend to alienate between making statements and asking questions in part as my belief that I know what's going on wanes and waxes.

So, currently, I'm going to be asking questions.

I take it that you are asserting that player desires and character desires aren't at the same level like food being sweet / sour / salty / bitter, but at different levels, like sweet vs cold?

But, otoh, engaging challenges as player vs character are at the same level?

That is a very good question. Regarding player/character desires I am saying two things. The first one is, as you say, that they work at different levels. I'm as of yet unsure of how good a cold/sweet analogy is, but I'll accept it for now. The second one is that character desires are ultimately player desires, as it is the player who decides on her character's desires.

What I tried to say regarding engaging challenges is that I'm not sure how you can make a character/player distinction there. It's not that player/character are at the same level, but that I'm not sure it is a player/character distinction (in fact, when I wrote that I may have thought we were talking about the challenge/story axis). To me it seems more a mechanics question (how do we solve an action?) than a player/character question (who is the focus?)

Darth Ultron
2018-06-21, 04:49 PM
How is pressing a button different that uttering a word for that purpose?
What is the difference between me pushing a particular button to have my character do a particular thing in a computer game and uttering a particular string of words to have my character do a particular thing in a tabletop role-playing game?

Yes.

Lets take the social encounter: PC wants to get past a guard and into a castle party.

*Roll Playing(wargaming, video games) Using just the rules-PC 1 must roll a diplomacy check of 11 to enter the room. The PC say say endless fluff, but the roll is all that matters. It is based all on the roll and the mechanics.

*Role Playing- Ignores the rules for this and has the Player role play talking to the guard in character. The player has to use real life social skills, or at least fictional ones, to make a good case to succed at the action. In pure role play no dice or rules are used, but sometimes they are used to give a 'lite' indication.

Mechanic play- roll a dice, hit a button.
Role Play-No rules actually playing a role.



According to them, it would seem that role-playing is basically playing a role, or as you say "acting out a character." If you can act out a character in a game,why wouldn't that be role-playing? Or maybe you're using English language in a different way than the rest of the world again and you mean something else?

The dictionary.com definition of Role Play is just 'playing a role', but for it to be a 'role playing game', you have to 'play the role of a character in a game'. And when you roll a die, you are literally rolling and not role playing.

The old D&D, 0E, had this split. Gary was a mechanics and Dave was a role playing....and D&D is the combination of the two styles, but it's by no means an equal one. D&D has always by the book been like 3/4 mechanics play and 1/4 role play. All the old 0E books did say 'Adventure Game' right on the middle of the cover, with 'role playing game' smaller at the bottom and off to the side. By 1E few words were on the cover, and by 2E 'role playing' was just the vague term it is today.




But my contention here is that "Player-Story" will always underlie "Character-Story." You can't have a player role-playing a character no matter what unless that is the call that the player is making.

There is a huge difference.

''Player-Story" is the player acting out the whole fictional story, with the character as just a part of it.

''Character-Story" is the player acting out the character in the fictional story.

A player that cares about the story will let anything happen to their character, even up to death, if it will make a good story they want to tell.

A player that cares about the character will protect the character with 'plot armor' as they are the story.


The second one is that character desires are ultimately player desires, as it is the player who decides on her character's desires.

First there is a huge split between the three ways here:

1.Themselves: The player will only play characters that would ''agree'' with themselves.
2.Acting: The player will play role, even ones they don't ''agree'' with
3.Gaming: The player will keep the game idea first over anything.

A LOT of players only play the first type, but then a lot of players play as 'themselves'. If they like X and don't like Y, then so will their character. The actors will play anything...they like the challenge of not only playing a role, but often playing a role they would not agree with and would not be a 'first choice'.

The gamer will alter anything to keep a good game going.

So take the story idea of 'group of four evles will be joined by an orc for a mission, and elves dislike the orc the orc hates elves.

Some players don't like the idea of 'hate', even 'fantasy hate' and will refuse to be the orc character at all. They will be an elf that believes in diversity..just like the player does.

The actor will play the orc with hate up to 11 and very much role play into character...no matter what the player thinks about anything in real life. At the extreme, this player might even have the orc 'ruin' the game by attacking the elves.

The gamer is fine with the hate and role playing and all, but adds the twist of ''the orc decides to be a part of the group''...and maybe they have a role playing story reason, but the MAIN reason it to keep the game flowing and not disrupt play.




To me it seems more a mechanics question (how do we solve an action?) than a player/character question (who is the focus?)

You get three choices:

1.Set game mechanics. The DC to do the action is X, right out of the rules.
2.Vague game mechanics. Any action will be resolved with improv rules, maybe based on something.
3.No Mechanics. You, the player, must for real, really role play your characters action.

Mordaedil
2018-06-22, 01:16 AM
As someone who does not play video games, is ''neverwinter nights'' a video game? Or is it something else? If your playing a game in real time with other people in an environment, is that a 'video game'? Are you applying 'video game' to 'any electronic game'?

I don't know how to interpret this, do you live under a literal rock? There is such a thing as Google to look up information like this too, you know.

Neverwinter Nights start as a game on AOL back in 91, and was fairly popular for being one of the early adaptions of D&D but you played it online with other people occupying the city of Neverwinter.

But the Neverwinter Nights that I and others are talking about is the Bioware computer RPG (read: a video game) released in 2002 for PC exclusively. It was an early-ish 3D game, but it had a single-player game shipped out of the box, came with a level editor and an online server hosting tool that anyone who bought the game could use and share with eachother, free of charge. A large community rose online to support it, producing modules meant to played alone or with other people and some people changed the settings for the server to support up to 96 simultaneous connections to one server (it has now increased even further) and because people could create their own levels, campaigns, stories, events, items and so on, it facilitated roleplaying quite extensively.

It was not an 'electronic game' as that is literally one of these:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41DFZQR1YGL.jpg

Pelle
2018-06-22, 06:35 AM
I need to think on this further, but... is there a difference between "story" and "metagaming"?


I don't see myself as a storygamer, but I would say there is some overlap at least. Depends on what you mean by 'metagaming' (people use the word in different ways). If you mean 'act on out of character knowledge', you don't need to do that.

But I would say that for storygaming, you can still roleplay in the sense that the character does what the character would do, you just continually (re)define what that is. After all, if the character actually did do something, that was what the character would do. If you thought the character would do something different based on previous characterization, well, you thought wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the eating...




Well, the discussion I was having with Pelle was, IIRC, centered around evaluating whether the player's goals for the story and the character's goals for the story were always in alignment. ... Yes, here was the quote:


I wasn't really thinking about the story at all here, but yes, acting towards goals tend to produce a story as a side effect.



Certainly, a D&D character will have a different set of perspectives and objectives than their player. Or can, at any rate. For example, someone roleplaying me investigating why a game went wrong? They'd start with the GM, obviously. Whereas that same player roleplaying someone else may be wrong-minded less biased, and start their investigation somewhere else. :smalltongue:


If the player knows exactly how the character would investigate, no problem, just have the character do that. If the character's behaviour in these situations is not really well defined, then I find player skill is a good enough way of simulating it. You could roll for solving the mystery, or the players can try to deduce themselves. The end result is the same, they either succeed or not. For me, the adventure game approach is more fun, and I also feel more like acting as the character if I have to do the deduction, instead of just watching a die roll.




But, otoh, engaging challenges as player vs character are at the same level?


I would say at different levels, but sometimes intersecting. And when they are, using player skill as resolution makes for a more fun and engaging game.



Yeah, I think I'm still a bit confused on which level(s) we're defining...

For the wargaming, I was looking for the extreme definition, just as an anchor point for myself when analysing other actual games and playstyles.
I would say Chutes and Ladders and War makes the wargame criteria. Just move pieces according to the rules. Player skill has no input to who 'wins'. Chess, and most boardgames, you move pieces according to the rules, but player skill is important. So borderland wargame/adventure game. Then take boardgames like One Night Ultimate Werewolf or Poker. Here you follow the rules mechanically, but a big part of the game is reading your opponents, knowing when to provide information and understanding the implication of what and when people choose to say something. This is much more over in adventure game land. And then you get into roleplaying and storygaming with characters, fiction, story, etc...


So all in all, I find the model useful enough for recognizing what the players in my group value, and who lean in which direction. I think some of them are more into wargaming than myself, and thus don't need to be challenged as players as much. They aren't really there to play a game, they have made a character and just want to watch what happens to it.

That is a bit unsatisfying to me personally, as it can often seem like the wargamers lack motivation to do things. I also find these players more often expect the DM to narrate what their character is doing, for example when they roll Search checks. For me as a DM that is boring. I like hearing how the players choose to characterize their characters, if they dismantle the desk, look inside, smash it or whatever. It is their responsibility to determine and describe what the character does.

MrSandman
2018-06-22, 10:00 AM
But I would say that for storygaming, you can still roleplay in the sense that the character does what the character would do, you just continually (re)define what that is. After all, if the character actually did do something, that was what the character would do. If you thought the character would do something different based on previous characterization, well, you thought wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the eating...


I don't quite get this bit. If your focus is on the story, shouldn't you be consistent with your character? Badly defined, constantly changing characters aren't really the mark of a good story. If you are regularly redefining the character, then you basically invalidate elements of the story without bothering to give an explanation as to why the story doesn't follow in a rational way, don't you?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-22, 10:30 AM
I don't quite get this bit. If your focus is on the story, shouldn't you be consistent with your character? Badly defined, constantly changing characters aren't really the mark of a good story. If you are regularly redefining the character, then you basically invalidate elements of the story without bothering to give an explanation as to why the story doesn't follow in a rational way, don't you?

Consistent =/= constant. Change over time is fine as long as you're not rewriting history. And even rewriting history is sometimes a necessary evil to cure major mismatches.

I'd say that characters that remain unchanged, no matter what they go through, strain credibility. Changing a character can also enhance (or detract) from the story--it's about how it's done.

Consider a group of adventurers in a grimdark, crapsack world. There is no white, there is only black and blacker. And then someone brings a holier-than-thou knight-in-shining-armor character to the group. Insists on fair trials, insists on all those other things that cause major intra-party (and intra-player, which is worse) conflict. You could easily fix the disjunction without breaking the story by letting the character change--show the soiling of his shiny armor (metaphorically). His "fall from grace". Etc.

The other options are to retcon the character completely (which may be required if you've written/played yourself into a corner) or to let the character fight the vain fight elsewhere (or get killed) and bring a new one.

Pelle
2018-06-22, 11:03 AM
I don't quite get this bit. If your focus is on the story, shouldn't you be consistent with your character? Badly defined, constantly changing characters aren't really the mark of a good story. If you are regularly redefining the character, then you basically invalidate elements of the story without bothering to give an explanation as to why the story doesn't follow in a rational way, don't you?

You mean story as in A Story that you can look back upon? I think you can be storygaming and live in the moment without considering the overarching Story, like the Kelly example by Cluedrew. And as PP say, constant isn't necessary. But yes, frequent random behaviour may be jarring. However, from the outside some behaviour may appear to not follow a pattern, but there might be an underlying explanation that can make sense of it (decided after the fact?).

This is just personal preference, but I prefer to leave some open space to be characterized during play. I want to have a solid starting point, but discover who the character really is. So most of the time for me, it's not that I change the character, I just hadn't defined up until this point of this character is the sort who only opens the drawer to look, carefully disassembles the desk, or smash it. I will make a decision in the moment based on the previous characterization. This might again affect later decisions. And if really redefining the character, like having the paladin change his ideals to not assassinate the king, I prefer that to be given a very good explanation so that it makes sense to the observers. I don't really care about Story myself though, but I at least want the decisions to be justified in-game somehow.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-22, 01:54 PM
I don't quite get this bit. If your focus is on the story, shouldn't you be consistent with your character? Badly defined, constantly changing characters aren't really the mark of a good story. If you are regularly redefining the character, then you basically invalidate elements of the story without bothering to give an explanation as to why the story doesn't follow in a rational way, don't you?

This is the difference between Character focus and Story focus.

Character Focus does whatever the character wants to do/would do. The player here is immersed in the Character, and cares much less about any story...maybe not at all. A character focused player often sees the 'plot' and 'story' as something negative the DM does. Often they will want to play in a game with no plot or story.

Story Focus does whatever the story would do. The player here is immersed in stroytelling, and cares less about the character. The character is just a 'part' of the story, after all. A story focused player wants to shape and follow and create and be a part of a story being told. They often seek out DMs with 'novel' stories to 'build' together.

Cluedrew
2018-06-22, 03:46 PM
To MrSandman: I would throw in my view, but did you see my last remark the difference between character-story and player-story? (post #111) I think the post I am responding too has been quoted enough.