| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 20:46:42
An essay of Ron Edwards about setting-heavy Story Now (aka Narrativist) play :
http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/setting_dissection.pdf |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 13:30:38
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
I think Burning Wheel satisfies the "Story Now" criteria, and hopefully gives some insight into how a game like this plays and operates differently from D&D. It also addresses the problem that Sleyvas outlined directly.
Of course, but BW takes a "heavy-weight" approach to push it, so it may be quite a difficult step coming from D&D.
edit1 : Luke Crane just did an interview where he talks about what I just said here : http://www.geekyandgenki.com/luke-crane-managing-tons-of-rules-in-play/
edit2 : the Solar system (The Shadow of Yesterday) is a "light-weight" approach : http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy2/solar_system.html |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 07:09:09
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Basically, what I'm saying is that most players I've dealt with don't want to develop their personality until after I've already created a storyline that draws them all together and started leading them down the path to adventure. When I say they don't want to develop their personality, I mean they just want to come up with a cool character name and stat their character out, then go. The DM will always come up with the "core issue", but I've rarely seen players that GIVE a DM a guidance for how they want the campaign to run until after they've played in the campaign for a while. On the reverse, I've been a person who would develop a character concept, only to have most DM's not take it into account at all.
So, to sum it up, I've been on the DM side going "what do you want to do, let me know and I'll tailor an adventure around it"... and I hear crickets. I've also been on the player side going "hey, I'd love to play in a campaign where my character is this fallen from nobility status family who wants to become a mage-detective, but his family used their influence with the Church of Tyr to send him to be trained as a paladin".... only to have none of the ideas that I put forth (my family, the church, being a detective) be a part of the campaign unless I specifically force/shoe horn the DM into realizing he can use it.
Now, once I have a campaign going down certain paths, usually the players will have some ideas for their characters. I start to get feedback and I try to react accordingly, but usually I don't get jack from the outset unless I kick things in motion.
You describe exactly what ultimately pushed me away from D&D, and ultimately what drove me into the arms of Burning Wheel. What I enjoy most about role-playing is collaboratively telling stories with other people. It's about exploring interesting characters and interesting situations through a shared imagined fantasy. If I just wanted to kill things, get XP, and loot then I'd play a MMORPG.
In Burning Wheel you start by creating a situation. This is done collaboratively with the group. People start tossing out interesting ideas, and people start getting excited.
Player 1: "I want to play a game with pirates. I don't care what we're doing or where we are, so long as there are pirates."
Player 2: "I want something to do with the nobility of Cormyr, I want some intrigue among nobles."
Player 3: "I want to play a religious zealot. If we're going pirates, maybe a crazy priest of Umberlee, I don't know how that'll fit in with the nobility thing, though."
Etc. Etc.
Basically, after listening to this the GM decides that the situation is as follows: "The merchants whose vessels travel the Sea of Fallen Stars are rejoicing. The Pirates that have long preyed upon the ships that sailed these waters are at long last on the defensive. The Blue Dragons, the Cormyrian Imperial Navy has struck blow after blow against the pirates under the leadership of their new King Azoun V. All of you are pirates or have connections to them that is being interrupted by Cormyr's activity. Who are you and what are you going to do about it?"
At this point people start character creation (or "character burning"). Characters are created using lifepaths, which helps flesh out where they fit in the world. A ton of setting related stuff is built into the lifepaths. (The default setting is Tolkienesque.)
Finally, we get down to the meat of the characters which are the beliefs. Beliefs are pretty much the CORE of all conflict in Burning Wheel. Players use their beliefs to tell the GM the type of game they want to play, as well as how they want their characters to be challenged. It's the GM's job to challenge a PC's beliefs and the primary reward mechanic, called Artha, is build around that.
So, basically we might end up with three characters like this.
quote:
Wymond Bleth
Age: 28
Lifepaths: Born Noble -> Arcane Devotee -> Courtier -> Court Sorcerer
Belief 1: My father is a fool who is incapable of leading our house to glory. I must support my uncle's ambition, for only he can help us get vengeance against the Obarskyr Family.
Belief 2: I must unite the pirates under the banner of Westgate, starting with the Black Swan.
Belief 3: There is no problem that magic cannot solve.
Dindar
Age: 20
Lifepaths: Son of a Gun -> Pirate -> Officer's Mate -> First Mate
Belief 1: The Bleth family is my ticket to the easy life.
Belief 2: Captain Jeatheron has outlived his usefulness, the priest and the noble are right - I deserve to be the captain instead.
Belief 3: I know the Captain has hidden away some treasure, and I must find it!
Krass Wavebreaker
Age: 29
Lifepaths: City Born -> Template Acolyte -> Priest -> Chaplain
Belief 1: There is no place safe from the winds and waves of the Bitch Queen!
Belief 2: All who pray to Valkur must be shown their folly through a demonstration of the Bitch Queen's wrath!
Belief 3: In order to keep Kaladar Bleth's trust, I must protect his nephew Wymond and ensure that the plan we hatched together is successful.
-------------------
The above are some quickly thrown together characters. They're missing a lot of their stuff, such as skills, traits, instincts, etc. However, it's the beliefs that are important. The group would have created their characters together as they discussed the situation. You can pretty much tell which of the three players ended up creating which character.
As they created their beliefs the situation was solidified by making the conflicts clear. The group decided that there is a Temple of Umberlee in Marsember, and that shortly after Azoun V came to the throne he decided he wanted to launch a military campaign against the pirates of the Sea of Fallen Stars. It was a political move to display that Azoun V was capable of leading the kingdom in the dangerous times that they face, and to attempt to solidify the nobility behind him. (Many young nobles from powerful families are sailing and fighting aboard vessels under the new King's command.)
It hasn't been particularly costly to the crown - yet. In fact, a great deal is financed by powerful merchant companies who are paying for the "protection and safe passage" offered by sailing along with the fleet as they patrol the waters.
Meanwhile, in Westgate there is trouble brewing in the exiled Bleth family who have managed to maneuver themselves into a powerful position in Westgate. There is a divide between Wymond's father and uncle. His father is a charismatic individual, and a decent enough leader. However, he lacks ambition and isn't really focused on furthering the status of the house. He's slow, deliberative, and calculating in his moves. Wymond's uncle - Kaladar Bleth - is ambitious. He wants to see the Bleth family not only rule Westgate but wage a guerrilla war on Cormyr. He, like Wymond, wants revenge on the Obarskyr for casting them into exile.
The seeds of these ideas were planted by Krass Wavebreaker, a priest of Umberlee from Marsember. He's managed to work his way into House Bleth by winning Kaladar Bleth's favor. Not long after assuming command of the Blue Dragons (the Imperial Navy of Cormyr) Azoun V began to promote the worship of Valkur over Umberlee. This has infuriated the clergy of Umberlee, and Krass has taken it upon himself to ensure that this foolishness does not go unpunished. Hence why he has aligned himself with the Bleth family and is pushing them toward these plans.
This brings them both to the Black Swan, a vessel under the command of Captain Jeatheron. Krass and Wymond have been trying to convince Captain Jeatheron to pledge his loyalty to Westgate. He'll do it but he's charging a steep price - too steep, in fact. That's where they met the Captain's First Mate, the third player character named Dindar. He isn't the brightest fellow in the book, but he's much more pliable than the Captain. They've convinced him that they can help him overthrow the Captain and put him in charge of the Black Swan instead.
They played on his grudges against the Captain, but there is one thing that Dindar wants above all else - he believes the Captain has stashed away somewhere a secret treasure. He wants to find it. This is really his motivating goal for wanting to overthrow the Captain.
It's decided that the first session will begin in a small fishing village located somewhere in the Pirate Isles. The vessel Krass and Wymond arrived in, along with the Black Swawn are docked and everyone is ashore. Another round of negotiations with Captain Jeatheron is about to begin - in an attempt to get him to lower his price, as the sun begins to set. Most of the pirates are drinking and whoring. They have decided to begin laying the ground work for a mutiny against the Captain of the Black Swan after this last round of negotiations ends.
The game will begin with an intense Duel of Wits (a social combat mechanic) between Wymond and Captain Jeatheron.
-------------------
This gives an example of what it is like to start a Burning Wheel game. A DM doesn't go off into a cave somewhere and come back with a game ready for the players. The group as a whole discusses what type of game they want to play, create a situation around that game, build characters that fit into that situation, and create beliefs that reflect how their characters feel about that situation.
A Burning Wheel GM's primary objective is to challenge the beliefs of the player characters. As beliefs get accomplished, for example - Dindar finds the Captain's hidden treasure - they go away and players create new ones. Alternatively, as players feel beliefs are no longer relevant they change them. Beliefs generally change or are tweaked at the start of each new session, to reflect what the players are attempting to accomplish.
For example, let's say Dindar finds out about the treasure but it's located out of the way. He wants to try and get the treasure all sneaky-like so he doesn't have to share it. Yet, he's had to convince Wymond that it is very important to sail to a particular part of the Dragon Isle. He knows there are some pirate coves there and is attempting to convince Wymond that he might be able to sway some other pirate captains to serve Westgate as well. However, he intends to slip away and hunt for the treasure on his own.
Sadly, Dindar isn't that clever and Wymond knows he is hiding something. Wymond wants to find out, so at the start of the next session he changes his third belief "There is no problem that magic cannot solve." to "I know that Dindar is hiding something, and I must uncover this secret so that it does not interfere with the plans we've made."
Some beliefs, as in the example above, are challenged by other PC's. Since Dindar doesn't want to share the treasure, he's going to resist telling Wymond anything about it.
Other beliefs can only be challenged by the GM. For example, both Dindar's first belief and Krass's third belief can be challenged by putting Wymond in danger. If something happens to Wymond Dindar's "ticket to the easy life" slips away, and Krass will lose the trust and favor of his uncle. Dindar is also challenging one of his own beliefs by keeping the treasure secret, he risks angering Wymond. So it is possible to have beliefs that are in conflict with themselves.
I think Burning Wheel satisfies the "Story Now" criteria, and hopefully gives some insight into how a game like this plays and operates differently from D&D. It also addresses the problem that Sleyvas outlined directly. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 06 May 2013 : 23:51:43
quote:
So, to sum it up, I've been on the DM side going "what do you want to do, let me know and I'll tailor an adventure around it"... and I hear crickets. I've also been on the player side going "hey, I'd love to play in a campaign where my character is this fallen from nobility status family who wants to become a mage-detective, but his family used their influence with the Church of Tyr to send him to be trained as a paladin".... only to have none of the ideas that I put forth (my family, the church, being a detective) be a part of the campaign unless I specifically force/shoe horn the DM into realizing he can use it.
If the DM gives a precise, interesting situation (i.e. what the campaign will be about) than it's a lot easier for the players to come up with relevant, interesting characters.
In your examples, the DM is being too vague, and the player is being too specific too soon.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 06 May 2013 : 20:42:15
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
His concept sounds great on paper. In reality, when I've gotten a group of players together, I've always run into the issue that most of them simply don't want to put that much effort into their character's histories, motivations, etc....
In fact, most RPGs aiming to push groups towards "Story Now" specifically ask players to come up with a few specific key elements about their characters instead of a detailled background.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
They'd rather have the DM give them a core issue to pull them together as a team and THEN develop their character's motivations and have the DM adapt the story to incorporate their own wants/desires.
In "story now", the DM is usually in charge of coming up with the core issue and checking that the PCs will fit and have something that make them interesting to play together. Developing the characters in play is actually what "story now" is about!
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
In fact, the few times that I've been a player rather than the DM, its almost always someone's homebrew campaign, I always write these in-depth background stories for my character and the DM rarely incorporates any of it into the game.
That is exactly why some RPGs frown in-depth backgrounds and associate mechanical advantages/disadvatanges to the key elements describing a character.
Basically, what I'm saying is that most players I've dealt with don't want to develop their personality until after I've already created a storyline that draws them all together and started leading them down the path to adventure. When I say they don't want to develop their personality, I mean they just want to come up with a cool character name and stat their character out, then go. The DM will always come up with the "core issue", but I've rarely seen players that GIVE a DM a guidance for how they want the campaign to run until after they've played in the campaign for a while. On the reverse, I've been a person who would develop a character concept, only to have most DM's not take it into account at all.
So, to sum it up, I've been on the DM side going "what do you want to do, let me know and I'll tailor an adventure around it"... and I hear crickets. I've also been on the player side going "hey, I'd love to play in a campaign where my character is this fallen from nobility status family who wants to become a mage-detective, but his family used their influence with the Church of Tyr to send him to be trained as a paladin".... only to have none of the ideas that I put forth (my family, the church, being a detective) be a part of the campaign unless I specifically force/shoe horn the DM into realizing he can use it.
Now, once I have a campaign going down certain paths, usually the players will have some ideas for their characters. I start to get feedback and I try to react accordingly, but usually I don't get jack from the outset unless I kick things in motion. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 06 May 2013 : 16:31:03
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
His concept sounds great on paper. In reality, when I've gotten a group of players together, I've always run into the issue that most of them simply don't want to put that much effort into their character's histories, motivations, etc....
In fact, most RPGs aiming to push groups towards "Story Now" specifically ask players to come up with a few specific key elements about their characters instead of a detailled background.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
They'd rather have the DM give them a core issue to pull them together as a team and THEN develop their character's motivations and have the DM adapt the story to incorporate their own wants/desires.
In "story now", the DM is usually in charge of coming up with the core issue and checking that the PCs will fit and have something that make them interesting to play together. Developing the characters in play is actually what "story now" is about!
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
In fact, the few times that I've been a player rather than the DM, its almost always someone's homebrew campaign, I always write these in-depth background stories for my character and the DM rarely incorporates any of it into the game.
That is exactly why some RPGs frown in-depth backgrounds and associate mechanical advantages/disadvatanges to the key elements describing a character. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 06 May 2013 : 15:14:28
His concept sounds great on paper. In reality, when I've gotten a group of players together, I've always run into the issue that most of them simply don't want to put that much effort into their character's histories, motivations, etc.... They'd rather have the DM give them a core issue to pull them together as a team and THEN develop their character's motivations and have the DM adapt the story to incorporate their own wants/desires. In fact, the few times that I've been a player rather than the DM, its almost always someone's homebrew campaign, I always write these in-depth background stories for my character and the DM rarely incorporates any of it into the game. So, while I could enjoy one of these "Story Now" campaigns, I think I'd find it exceptionally hard to find the right people to run such a campaign. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 05 May 2013 : 00:33:16
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Simulationism? The word appears in conflict with the idea of roleplay.
The Right to Dream means that playing don't need to result in a story, and that if there is one, than it's only because it "organically" emerged from a pure enjoyment of the shared fictive universe (possibly including the rules that represent its "physics"). |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 23:19:07
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've never heard of him. Why would he not be popular here?
Because he despises a form of play, "The Right to Dream" (aka Simulationism) that I asssume is what the majority of people here have in mind, when asked what an RPG should be about.
Simulationism? The word appears in conflict with the idea of roleplay. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 22:02:07
Wooly , I just did a search of him, a game designer to his credit according to wikipedia is
quote:
Ronald Edwards (born September 4, 1964) is a game designer, theorist, and an influential member of the indie role-playing game community. Notably, he is the creator of the Sorcerer RPG, the GNS Theory of gameplay, and The Big Model.
Edwards is also co-founder of The Forge, an online community to support Indie RPG design and publication.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Edwards_%28game_designer%29
|
| Skeptic |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 22:01:55
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've never heard of him. Why would he not be popular here?
Because he despises a form of play, "The Right to Dream" (aka Simulationism) that I asssume is what the majority of people here have in mind, when asked what an RPG should be about. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 21:53:16
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Ron Edwards I find crude and his theory so far appears just his way to me.
I know that he's not popular over here (to say the least), but I was so surprised that he found something positive to say about setting-heavy play that I couldn't resist 
I've never heard of him. Why would he not be popular here? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 21:32:49
Skeptic *nods* I came across a few Dragon Lance modules, one that comes to mind was no matter how inescapable the BEG was killed, the DM had to invent a reason why he still lived because he had to be fought again in something like three planned adventures later.
I never played Dragon Lance modules, just read a few of them.
Edit: Typo, Why replaced When |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 21:24:10
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Story before an adventure starts does not exist if there is a good DM, unless story before means that the DM must build a location that has NPCs in it (Some that help others that harm).
Doing prep. before play does not imply "story before" no, it is in fact usually required to get "story now".
If you do too much "plot" prep., you are going towards "story before" and if you do too much (only) "world-building" prep. you are going towards "story after"/"no story". |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 21:15:28
Story before an adventure starts does not exist if there is a good DM, unless story before means that the DM must build a location that has NPCs in it (Some that help others that harm). |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 20:33:06
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
This essay seems to just be a convoluted and formalized breakdown for doing what every competent DM (and most children) can already do well enough: simply tell a story in an entertaining and almost-believable fashion. Regardless how many authors, narrators, characters, or players might be involved.
The basic idea is that many RPGs (AD&D, WoD, D6, etc.) because of their design, have made many of their players forget, their, as you say yourself, natural capacity of coming up with stories.
Some of them push groups towards "Story before", others towards "Story after" (or no story at all).
Just to give one example, D&D 3.x requires so much prep. for the DM that it is very difficult to avoid "Story before".
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 19:57:26
This essay seems to just be a convoluted and formalized breakdown for doing what every competent DM (and most children) can already do well enough: simply tell a story in an entertaining and almost-believable fashion. Regardless how many authors, narrators, characters, or players might be involved.
I don't really see why anyone needs flowcharts and technical jargon to see broken plot or know whether or not a story is entertaining. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 18:32:25
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Ron Edwards I find crude and his theory so far appears just his way to me.
I know that he's not popular over here (to say the least), but I was so surprised that he found something positive to say about setting-heavy play that I couldn't resist
As far as it goes, this was first time I knew of him. My reaction to him was based on that one essay. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 18:11:05
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Ron Edwards I find crude and his theory so far appears just his way to me.
I know that he's not popular over here (to say the least), but I was so surprised that he found something positive to say about setting-heavy play that I couldn't resist |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 03 May 2013 : 22:58:32
Ron Edwards I find crude and his theory so far appears just his way to me. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 03 May 2013 : 22:14:16
My ADD is keeping me from fully getting into this right now, but there's a lot of good stuff to think about, here. I've kinda always felt that published modules have been limited and restrictive, rather than a viable way to expand a campaign... and this seems to explain it.
The take-home message for me, at my current level of mental operation  is that if you approach DMing with a clear idea of what you want to happen, and where/when/how (like a published module) you're setting yourself up for a headache and the players are unlikely to enjoy the play if they feel pigeonholed into a particular role or outcome. A better approach is to maybe have a list of relevant things happening offstage at particular times but mainly be immersed in the setting yourself and present the players with an array of options... and be fully prepared to lead them down whatever road they choose. This isn't an earthshattering revelation for experienced DMs, but I think it's useful to have an explanation for the circumstances in which it's true.
Also, let the setting belong to the players, rather than claiming it as your world/campaign. Their actions will change the world... or you'll lose them when they feel like nothing they do matters.
I like this, because it takes the emphasis off the rules, for the DM. The rules can be tools when you want them, but they shouldn't be allowed to be a hindrance to the enjoyment of the setting... or, on a sorta "meta" level, the time you have available to enjoy the company of your friends. Grins should always be more important than being right, or winning.
Anyway, there's more there than what I'm getting... I'd be interested in seeing more responses to this. |
|
|
