Table-top RPG play style flowchart

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

I pondered on whether to stick this in Game Chat, but it's sort of out of place there. I also pondered on whether to stick this in the Link Hive, but it didn't feel right either.

So, I give you Evil Brain Jono's Table-Top RPG GM Flowchart.

Discuss.

Cheers,
J.

 

[Ronin Storm]

Ya, been in most places in that chart. That said, I also disagree with the chart. It makes out that the choices in game design are discrete and I contend that it's more of a continuum than that and even that a single game may contain scenes that flip-flop or blend mechanisms effectively.

For example, it's not a binary decision to build story arc versus player character directed flow.

Also, I think the chart confuses the three roles of games into the commonly accepted two. The common two are referee and player, where sometimes the referee role is distributed or negotiated between the players (consent based play). However, there is a third role of designer who is responsible for building a platform on which to play (where the players play with the platform and the referee mediates actions within/around the platform). What does this mean? Design decisions are actually separate from mediation and game flow decisions, and while each may impact the other they are still distinct.

I'll pause for breath and to allow other people to catch up and discuss.

 

[Kasatka]

I end up with participationism or burning out, as i pre-stat too much. I do this because i cannot stand GMs fudging stats on the fly and me not being able to understand how my mechanically enforced role-playing is interacting with the cinematically run GMing.

 

[Ronin Storm]

What system(s) do you play with, Kat?

 

[Kasatka]

World of Darkness, Dungeons & Dragons (3.5 ed and earlyer, dislike 4th), Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (2nd ed, not this boardgame-esque rubbish of 3rd ed) and the 40k RPG line (Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch).

 

[Ronin Storm]

Ah yeah, I can see where you're going to be running aground with those when mixed with heavily scripted games. Lots of dice and stats do not a cinematic experience make unless the system is oriented towards that directly.

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

Well, the choices in game design are discrete along some certain key variables, and very much of a continuum along some others. Then again, while a certain game's design does inform play style somewhat (or, a lot, depending on your universe of games), the chart is specifically about GM prep and what that does to play style.

And yes, I've been pretty much everywhere in that chart. Fortunately, I've learned to identify the causes and dynamics that lead groups into the red boxes. I've also never found the "Sandbox" green box fun, like, at all.

I find that, nowadays, virtually all of my playing gravitates towards the "Story Now" box, with one exception, namely any game where the focus is on the process of detailed resolution. Lately, that's been 3.5, for me, but we'll soon be migrating to 4E. I find that, if the focus is on the resolution rather than on the story, then it's not only OK, but actually a plus if the GM handles the story.

However, if the game's focus is not detailed resolution, then, a) there better not be any detailed mechanics at all, and b) give me "Story Now", for the sake of all that is holy!

And most importantly, I refuse to play Mother May I games unless a) I'm the GM, and b) everyone understands and subscribes to the fact that that's the style we'll be playing. (Why, yes, that was a shameless plug of some old articles in my own blog... Why do you ask? )

Cheers,
J.

 

[luc]

Firstly I won't be coy about my style of GMing, I like a lot of intrigue, a little confusion and often combat is a rare thing indeed. As per the flow of the chart I found that it's either a case of Story Now, Participationism or Boredom. This is primarily due to the fact I wing a lot, often having a start and an end goal in mind and just leave the 'adventures' in the campaign to flow.

I find I often downplay, or just outright ignore, combat. Not to say I don't have dilemna, stats often take a background in combat - which can be seen as a bad thing. Saying this, as I know it, I sometimes try to spice it up.

As for what I run, I'm much more of a modern/sci-fi guy. My current games are nWoD (Mortals) aiming to add flavour to a Changeling game, and Dark Heresy with a couple of Rogue Trader characters. I'm definitely not the one for 4E, though I enjoy 3/.5 on rare occasion; I was however introduced to RPing with WFRP 1st and still like it to this day (bar 3rd ed - I share the sentiment). As per broadening the discussion a bit, my favourite game is Nobilis, and I like a spatter of the Lovecraftian flavour with CoC and Ctech. As per a game that I'd like to try - A|State. Had it for a while, but it's got nice Dark City undertones; possibly even use it for an Inception style game.

Here's a nice question, I often see it debated on rpgnet: What is most important for you when choosing an RPG for you? Setting, System, Style etc.?

 

[Ronin Storm]

What is most important for you when choosing an RPG for you? Setting, System, Style etc.?

Understanding that I only homegrow worlds thesedays, so my system choice is purely based on how I think it will help the players play. Currently using No Dice, which is almost like saying that I've made it all up and just liked the look of No Dice's card-drawing.

Basically, I want system to be very simple. For many years, I ran completely systemless but I think that in a homegrown game this can leave players adrift in wondering how effective their characters are.

As No Dice doesn't really contain any character stat design, I've picked four basic "stats" that focus on situation resolution. It's a sci-fi game, so I've got Combat (means: "resilient, effective, tactical"), Technical (means: "knowledgeable, practical, analytical"), Manoeuvre (means: "agile, balanced, coordinated") and Finesse (means: "perceptive, adaptable, centred"). Each of these is rated from -3 Crippled to +5 Grand Master (or maybe more) with 0 being a normal person and 1 being an average PC.

But it's all just guidance. I'm really just making it up in a mostly systemless way because I want the players to dominate the game.

 

[Kasatka]

For me, the most important part of an RPG is comprehensive game mechanics that are not too heavy (See grappling in D&D) nor too light (see the complete omission of nourishment and sleep in the current 40k series). I rarely use pre-written adventures in books, and even more rarely use campaign settings (other than the Forgotten Realms books for D&D 3.5ed), so if a system doesnt have mechanics that work and everyone can understand them being balanced and fair, then im not interested.

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

What is most important for you when choosing an RPG for you? Setting, System, Style etc.?

I love this question! System, hands down!

Thing is, what I call System is probably not what you call System.

Most people that play (and talk about) RPGs call System the set of writen rules in whatever game they're playing. To me, the rules certainly inform the system, but they are not the system.

Rather, to me, System is "the way the group comes to an agreement as to what is or is not true within the game fiction". System is basically who can say what about what and when.

Most "traditional" (or "conventional", if you like that term better) RPGs play basically by the same System: a central GM, with authority over pretty much everything except the thoughts and attitudes of the misguidedly called Player Characters*. Said GM has authority even over when, how and why which parts of the rules as written are applied. But there are many, many other systems.

I choose different Systems when I want different things: when I want action-packed light drama, distributed types of systems, with issue-driven rule sets such as Primetime Adventures, serve me well; when I want heavy character development and Story Now play, I go to a "bang" driven system and stakes-based rule sets such as Shadow of Yesterday or Solar System; when I want Participacionism, I generally like to go with strategic or tactical challenge, so I go for the traditional system, but with crunchy, well-balanced rules sets, such as 3.5 or 4E. And there's more.

I know that, for some people, the choice of setting is very important for choosing a game. In my experience, virtually all of those people have only ever played traditional systems, so they are left with not that many diferentiating variables between games.

As for style, I have to confess I have no idea what you mean...

Cheers,
J.

(*) The term Player Character is misguided because it implies that the GM is not a "player" in the game. It creates an unnecessary artificial division with a mild, yet nasty tendency to distort the social contract of the gaming group.

 

[Zooggy]

Hey,

I've picked four basic "stats" that focus on situation resolution. It's a sci-fi game, so I've got Combat (means: "resilient, effective, tactical"), Technical (means: "knowledgeable, practical, analytical"), Manoeuvre (means: "agile, balanced, coordinated") and Finesse (means: "perceptive, adaptable, centred").

I have two challenges for you, if you choose to accept them.

1) Try it with stats that focus on conflict resolution instead, meaning, only "roll" (draw, toss, cast, whatever) when the characters are actually opposed by other characters. (I don't have a set of suggestions for you, as I don't know what sort of conflicts will be appropriate for the game, but, for instance, from your list above, Combat would certainly apply, and Finesse might, in a social situation, but Technical and Manoeuvre most likely wouldn't.)

2) Try it with stats that focus on issue resoluition instead, meaning, only "roll" (draw, toss, whatever) when what the characters are trying to do directly conflicts with an internal emotional issue of some sort. This only works well for settings with clear inherent emotional issues. For instance, in a game about medieval Japan, you might have stats like Station, Honor, Duty and Glory. Which one the player chooses to draw on is a statement, by that player, as to what is important for him in that situation, and necessarily colors the GM's narration of the resulting pass/fail results.

Either one is pretty radical, but the second is the more radical of the two. It will basically force your prep along completely different avenues, and it will impose a completely different feel to the game sessions. It may or may not work for you and your groups, but it will certainly be surprising, the first time you try it out.

(Some of you folks reading this are probably thinking, "meh, old news, passé". Others might be thinking, "neat, I could totally try that". I'm hoping at least one or two of you are thinking, "whoa! I never even knew that was a possibility!"... )

Cheers,
J.

 

[luc]

I definitely agree with utilising a different system for different effect is the way to roll. There are the rough categories, as have been covered however, I'll also add that it depends on the group and how the system is used. This may be an odd thing to say, and it is limited by some systems, but I am certain that in a lot of cases different GMs and PCs will utilise the rules in a different way; especially so as intended without clarification from the makers of the system.

As per style, you've touched on the grey area that style embodies. This can be the tone, the layout, the impression of a game etc. For instance D&D 3.5 is your monolithic fantasy RPG, 40K is Grimdark Sci-Fi, Traveller is (as a base) Space Opera, Hollow Earth Expedition is Vernian Pulp, and Exalted is your monolithic wushu-esque outing. Now I used both Exalted and D&D purposefully as both are monolithic as a style however, D&D is monolithic due to it's history and popularity, and Exalted is monolithic in how it handles it's setting, and the detail with which it goes into (some may be saying about the D&D setting books, but I'm merely stating on the basis of percentage of material produced, or at least my impression of it). Pretty much, style is both a collective impression and what you take away from it as well.

Now, I'll step in on the passé form to your challenges. I don't often get too involved in attribute debates - that's what system discussion is for and I'm rather fickle on this front, but lets give it a whirl.

1) Ultimately any stat is there for, when used in a system that uses randomisation, providing that random result. Now my favourite game doesn't use this, and instead utilises a limited resource pool which must be managed, and most systems combine the two (spells per day in D&D, fate points in 40K, managing fallout in Dogs in the Vineyard). If a statline is purely focused on managing conflict resolution then a baseline needs to be understood in regards to random events. If we want to get into the meta of it, one could argue that "finding the secret door" is a conflict, as you want to find it, but finding it is hard. Direct PC with PC/NPC conflict can work however, that depends on what you want the game to be about, and how you want to handle actions outside of this.

2) This has certainly been tried before, and in fact the first thing that comes to mind that does similar is the Smallville RPG by that sell-out publisher MWP (can you tell I don't like them?). To summarise:

Your character’s main descriptive mechanics aren’t stats. Instead, you have six Values – Duty, Glory, Justice, Love, Power and Truth. Then instead of skills you have how strong your relationships are with the other people in your life, be they PCs or NPCs. Now, in both cases these relationships don’t have to be positive, and must be explicated by a phrase describing your emotions. So someone might have “Love is all I need d4” while another person might have “I have no time for Love d12”. They don’t have to be complimentary either, or objectively true; Joe might have “JANE is my soulmate d8” while Jane might have “I like to lead JOE along d10”.

The link above is to the full review, and I recommend you check it out.

Similarly FATE/FUDGE utilises aspects, Nobilis you have manipulation levels, and are defined by gifts and estates purely from prose, single word statements which are then given a value; for instance the Power of Transcendence or that the character Casus follows the Code of Testing which includes "To be sentient is to desire. Do not permit contentment." (more detail on Nobilis here, primarily due to the fact that I know it more).

Finally, I'd like to touch on this concept of the PC connotation you hint at*. The GM is not a character, a given, but they are very much a player in that the narattor is part of a novel. It's an interesting dynamic which I highly recommend playing with. A couple of books that could help you playing with this is Polaris where the narrative aspect is shared with no central figure being the GM and Houses of the Blooded where there is still a GM, but the players have a limited resource (mixed with chance) at placing certain worldly facts in place (and the prescribed "bad form" that it entails).

(*) The term Player Character is misguided because it implies that the GM is not a "player" in the game. It creates an unnecessary artificial division with a mild, yet nasty tendency to distort the social contract of the gaming group.

 

[Ronin Storm]

I have two challenges for you, if you choose to accept them.

Is this an academic challenge?

In this case, I've deliberately chosen stats that only affect action or time-critical scenes. I'm not interested in resolution in social or less urgent play. I treat social scenes as opportunities for discussion, both meta (player) and character and talk out the outcomes.

I describe it as situation resolution as opposed to task resolution. Thus there isn't a card drawn for each shot, nor does a success or failure indicate absolutes. Instead I treat it as guidance. Thus, failing a combat draw might indicate the fight is going against you and a different strategy may be in order. Succeeding at a technical draw might indicate that, despite not having much experience, events fall into place that bring about a desirable result.

See where I'm coming from in that and why it's somewhat different to conflict or even issue resolution?

Not to say they aren't potentially interesting areas...

 

[Ronin Storm]

A couple of mild disagreements, partly just for sake of discussion...

Ultimately any stat is there for, when used in a system that uses randomisation, providing that random result.

While, when qualified as above, I'd agree, I find that I disagree with this being the wholeness of the point behind stats.

Sure, in traditional RPGs, stats are there to provide information to qualify dice rolling resulting in task resolution. However, I'd argue that the point of stats is purer than that. At their heart, they provide a player with information about how their character compares to the world. In a big way, I feel that's what a character sheet is really for: e.g. Biggles is good at flying but poor at repairing planes. Now I, the player, know that this is the case. Moreover, I can talk to my mate about whether his character or my character would be better leading some night aerial recon based, in part, on our character sheets.

Really, I'm a systemless gamer but in homegrown setups I find that players are often much less sure of where their characters stand in the order of things and this can make it hard for them to play with the world. I've found that simple character sheets help them get past this, though I don't doubt that it is the thinking exercise of "he's this good, but probably not that good" is key in this as well.

The GM is not a character, a given, but they are very much a player in that the narattor is part of a novel.

Narrator? I see where you're coming from but I think of it more as a facilitator. Sure, I've done a bunch of work designing a world and some events that happen in it but really all I want is for the players to have fun playing with that stuff and so I encourage and cajole and guide, where necessary, to help them find the fun in their play.

I have an agreement with my players. Asked a question, I'll always give my first answer based on what I think their character might know, be that public knowledge in the world or based on their individual experience. However, at any point they can ask me for the no-BS version and, insofar as I know it at the time, I will tell them the "objective" truth to the situation. I dislike meeting out secrets like treats but am aware that players do like to puzzle stuff out for themselves and their coming up with wild theories on this or that is good fun all round. But if their enjoyment would be improved by simply knowing that guy X is an agent of the enemy then that's cool by me. I'll help them remember that their character probably doesn't know that (or maybe they have an inkling, like "hey, I never liked that guy") but it's their game...

So, in that sense, I don't put myself much in the narrator's role. I tend to claim the referee title, as "facilitator" sounds far too much like I'm at work.

That said, I guess one does narrate, after a fashion, the NPCs and world ambience... or are they actually "played" by the referee?

An aside:

GM-free games are not administration-free games, but GM-free is perfectly viable especially when clear systems exist to help players mediate themselves.

I'm put in mind of RP-oriented MUSHes of the mid-1990's (e.g. AmberMUSH, which I frequented between '94 and '96). They fundamentally operate on the rule of consent, which says that for an action to affect my character I must consent to it. Practically, play mostly just evolves as cooperative prose but based on the precept that I always have the option to reject some prose written that affects my character. Leads to a lot of OOC chatter and scene engineering, which I appreciate actually.

Still, even with all this, an administration team were on hand to help players who didn't understand this, or simply mediate when player-level conflict occurred. Even at tabletop, figuring out the date for the next session is often left to the referee and in the absence of that the game's host...

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

Well, then... I was reading your post along, thinking of how I might compose a response, when I came across this:

A couple of books that could help you playing with this is Polaris where the narrative aspect is shared with no central figure being the GM

Sir, if you even know what Polaris is, then I probably have nothing to teach you. My only sorrow is that we don't live nearby, that we might game together. And yes, I've played it.

I grow curious as to your opinion of the articles I linked above...

Ronin, apologies for the line-by-line, but the thread kind of scatter-shotted and there's a lot of sub-issues going. I could split it off into threads, but this is the chat box, and ultimately, it's not that big a deal...

Is this an academic challenge?

Erm... I don't know, actually... It's an honest challenge that you try it in actual play, some time, but it's meant as a learning experience, so, yes, I guess.

I'm not interested in resolution in social or less urgent play. I treat social scenes as opportunities for discussion, both meta (player) and character and talk out the outcomes.

I know a lot of people that share this opinion. Alas, I've learned through great personal pain to not play with them. I could wax at great length as to why, but I'm not going to, unless you express a specific interest in it.

See where I'm coming from in that and why it's somewhat different to conflict or even issue resolution?

It's not somewhat different. It is, in fact, structurally, radically different. (If it weren't, my challenge wouldn't be all that interesting!)

At their heart, [stats] provide a player with information about how their character compares to the world. In a big way, I feel that's what a character sheet is really for:

More generally, stats (and everything else on the character sheet) provide a player with information about how their character connects to the game's subject matter. If comparison with the world at large is the thing, then yes. But in other games, stats are about what will be relevant to the character when he gets into trouble. A Dogs in the Vineyard character, for instance, might have "best shot in the world - 4" and "average horse back rider - 10", simply because, for that character, trouble with horses is more significant than trouble with guns. (Yes, technically, those are skills rather than stats, but DitV has stats as well and the point still stands. )

Really, I'm a systemless gamer

If you go by my definition of System above, there's no such thing as a systemless gamer. You may be a written-rules-less gamer, but there is still a system underlying your play. Furthermore, I submit that there are many and very specific rules to your gaming, they just happen to be unwritten.

I have an agreement with my players. Asked a question, [...] at any point they can ask me for the no-BS version and, insofar as I know it at the time, I will tell them the "objective" truth to the situation.

This grabbed my interest. This right here is very much a point of system. A particularly healthy one at that.

I'm put in mind of RP-oriented MUSHes of the mid-1990's (e.g. AmberMUSH, which I frequented between '94 and '96).

PernMUSH and Elendor here. IMHO, it's very hard to milk actual role-play from an online medium. Unless a constant active effort is put into it by all participants, it rapidly decays into collaborative improv drama. Note that this is not a bad thing, if that's what people are into. I remember sitting at Elendor for 25 hours straight, after working for 5 hours, and finally having to get up to go pee. (Yes, I sat in the same chair, without getting up, for 30 hours straight.)

This thread turned out to be way more fun than I expected.

Cheers,
J.

 

[Ronin Storm]

It's an honest challenge that you try it in actual play, some time, but it's meant as a learning experience, so, yes, I guess.

Ah, see where you're coming from. I play little enough these days, and have experimented enough over time, to not feel much like playing with the formula at the moment. I handpick players for games so that tends to work out okay, and the game I'm running at the moment is my first in the past four or so years. Don't have any plans for others so I'll sit on this a bit.

A Dogs in the Vineyard character...

You draw your conflict resolution concept from DitV?

If you go by my definition of System above, there's no such thing as a systemless gamer.

Tsk. Splitting semantic hairs, I think.

However, you suggest something in the way you put all this that brings me to my question:

What do you feel role-playing actually is, or perhaps is for?

I guess that question was really brought into focus by:

IMHO, it's very hard to milk actual role-play from an online medium. Unless a constant active effort is put into it by all participants, it rapidly decays into collaborative improv drama.

You see, I've played a pretty wide gamut (seriously, over 25 years so far) and I'm back from the land of hardcore immersion play and wandering in the land of "don't give a monkey's as long as its fun for me and the group". I don't subscribe to the GNS model but if one were to use that then I'm now running narrative-oriented games with a light dose of gamist system in a simulationist world.

What's role-playing for, for me? To have fun exploring and playing with an imaginary world through a lightly orchestrated sequence of story-linked scenes where the characters are always the central focus, purely because they're the player characters. (Why me? That's why the story is about you, dummy! )

I guess that's in the realm of "orchestrated collaborative improv" or something, but I contend it's all role-playing as it succeeds at the test of "players taking on roles in an imagined circumstance".

This grabbed my interest. This right here is very much a point of system. A particularly healthy one at that.

This is what I call game contract. I don't play without one any more, with the exception of one-off games (and even then I tend to ask all the same questions). Just says what we can all expect from the game. Tend to keep it simple but, conversely, I always talk it out explicitly and occasionally even write a half page on it for all my players in advance. Y'know, stuff on character deaths, group cooperation, player-player and player-referee interaction.

Oh, one other thought into the mix: I play around once every 6 to 8 weeks for a day. Changes the game dynamic a lot from the week-to-week stuff I used to do, including requiring a lot more session planning as a stop-point needs to be fairly coherent or risk falling on its face at the beginning of the next session.

 

[luc]

Some excellent points have been raised, so onto more words!

While, when qualified as above, I'd agree, I find that I disagree with this being the wholeness of the point behind stats...

Indeed here we have an issue of focus and qualification. I very much was taking the hellbent focus on the system perspective rather than the player perspective. Indeed if a character cannot provide boundaries as per how effective one is and where they stand in the grand scheme of things one could tread lightly into Mary territory with the wrong players. As someone that has taken from the low scale (Johnny Mortal) all the way up to the miraculous (Mr. Noble) it is in no doubt a useful tool on "where do I stand". I do not think however ones traditional 'system' is the only root by which this can be done. Talking of systemless I used to run and play in PBEM Star Trek 'SIMMS'. In which case your abilities where pretty much a mixture of the species characteristics, your rank, and position in Starfleet (on a ship). Purely taking inspiration from the TV show to allow for boundaries.

As for narration and the discussion surrounding it, we're not hitting a disagreement, moreso a conflict of terms. I liken the GMs position, like others have, to this concept of GM, Storyteller, Keeper, Narrator, DM, or my favourite Hollyhock God. I am a narrator, including exposition, that then allows the characters to make their own choices about how they're going to tackle whatever is met in the story of the game.

As for the aside, I'm one of several GMs and someone that runs my local club. You are correct however, facilitation is a key factor, but at least in the vacuum of the game this is not devoid by the concept of a narrator.

***

I grow curious as to your opinion of the articles I linked above...

As per your Mother May I series, it should become clear why I recommended Polaris and why I recommended HotB. I think an important point to consider is that this branch from a simplification is indeed somewhat liked and preferred by some players, both sitting at the GM and character sides of the table. We could even draw comparison, given if a random method is employed with racing board games.

Coming from a personal standpoint, I'll have to get around to how Kat described my GMing style by likening me to JJ Abrams, indeed it's very succinct and much better how I would have categorised myself. As I have said, I'm a fan of intrigue and confusion. I like to think what my players get out of one of my games is discovering to various extents what the situation, setting and story is really all about. I cannot however be devoid of providing players what they get a kick out of - which is numerous. If the Mother May I approach can be utilised to achieve that, and hence hopefully fun, I see no problem.

I think ultimately, being a format of gaming that is very much defined by the people involved through its sheer nature parallels are always going to be able to be drawn between it and other mediums, and other games. As to "Mother May I", I don't disagree that a parallel can be drawn at some level however, due to the malleable nature it is able to shift focus or eliminate that aspect if that's what the group wants to do.

I know a lot of people that share this opinion. Alas, I've learned through great personal pain to not play with them. I could wax at great length as to why, but I'm not going to, unless you express a specific interest in it.

To each their own taste, we could broaden this into a discussion about 'when to roll' (so to speak) but I think we're on the same wavelength. This, I feel, falls onto my point of how difference groups utilise systems (or lack thereof) in different ways.

It's not somewhat different. It is, in fact, structurally, radically different. (If it weren't, my challenge wouldn't be all that interesting!)

We could get into awfully beating around the bush on this one, saying that resolving a dilemna at one stage or another is being performed, just with various implementations of the 10-again (or with ubiquity, half-again), coming into play. Indeed I'm often a fan of providing players ideas with a knock-on effect to the game. If one describes how their going to achieve a task rather than blindly trying (one could say relying on the roll), then a bonus is to be added; much like tagging aspects in FATE/FUDGE.

If you go by my definition of System above, there's no such thing as a systemless gamer. You may be a written-rules-less gamer, but there is still a system underlying your play. Furthermore, I submit that there are many and very specific rules to your gaming, they just happen to be unwritten.

I'll agree somewhat on semantics here, but I think we need to draw a definition for our own purposes in which case so we don't get tied up in them. The term 'system' is very, very broad (coming from an engineer here) so shall we agree that the word is used to define a written ruleset as opposed to a utilitarian 'contract'?

***

You draw your conflict resolution concept from DitV?

I think that was more of an example, and I'm going to purposefully fail at providing a resolution to this to gain more fallout - woop woop.

What's role-playing for, for me?

Roll on the collaborative fiction! And some shits and giggles along the way.

I play around once every 6 to 8 weeks for a day.

That an interesting dynamic, and not one that I think would suit me well. Certainly for a series of one-shots however, for an ongoing campaign I don't think I would like it. I personally game twice a week, at the moment both evenings running. That may be that I'm just a greedy bugger that needs his addiction. On the other hand, I'm a fan of one-shots. I do like running con-games, and all the preparation that goes into it as such. I'd like to do it again, money permitting, so we shall see.

Out of interest, has either of you looked at the GenCon 2008 GM-Fu seminar, or Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering? Both are rather good on the GM toolset approach, but they do hint at a wider aspect, moreso than GNS as it's less theory and more practical.

***

Although it has been hinted on before, I thought i'd leave it until now, and until an aside to approach the subject. These are two questions:

1) Where do you find yourself? Do you like being a character? Do you like being a GM? If so, what style do you like to employ, or how would you describe oneself in relation? (not mutually exclusive)

2) We've touched on this idea of online 'tabletop' gaming, but how have you tried? Is there any you prefer?

To give you some idea I've personally played and ran using IRC, Forum-based, PBEM and utilised whiteboard applications like Gametable.

 

[Ronin Storm]

Oh man, long post is long. And I thought I was replying succinctly...

one could tread lightly into Mary territory with the wrong players.

I hadn't seen that implementation before but I recognise the product in play. I can think of a player or two at Uni who'd end up playing that sort of character...

In which case your abilities where pretty much a mixture of the species characteristics, your rank, and position in Starfleet (on a ship). Purely taking inspiration from the TV show to allow for boundaries.

I think that's one of the advantages of a setting that is well known to all the players. It's been a few years now, but I used to semi-frequent AmberCon NW and the advantages of everyone knowing the base material inside out was that we could play around it, with allusions to it, or just make two quick statements about constraints we placed upon it and everyone mostly just got it.

It's in the environment of homegrown setting, based on many different inspiring sources, where I find players (even experienced players) can stare at me blankly without a bit more guidance. Thing is, at heart I'm a world designer so a big part of the kick of gaming is the building of the world, for me.

As to "Mother May I", I don't disagree that a parallel can be drawn at some level however, due to the malleable nature it is able to shift focus or eliminate that aspect if that's what the group wants to do.

I think I'm about to agree in different words...

Isn't this all about permission to play? If so, isn't defining permissive boundaries what game contract is supposed to help with?

I certainly see the parallel and I'm sure I've run my fair share of Mother May I games. I can think of a friend or two who still do. They seem to be the games where the needs of the game story outweigh the needs/interests of the players (or, perhaps, their characters). Either that or the sandbox games where the handles are not obvious to the player. In the first case, players need to check with the referee that they're not breaking the game. In the latter case, players need to check with the referee that a particular thing is even available/possible within the context of the sandbox.

I like sandbox games, personally, because I'm the type to take permission to do something (albeit carefully) and thus start to poke at the environment in many different ways 'til I have it's form and substance and then am happy to manipulate it in ways that please me or that I think will amuse other players. However, I find that when I run such games in a homegrown setting they tend to fall flat on their face without adequate contract and information support to the players. I seem to be unusual in my stance of "take permission" while also balancing that with perceived needs of other participants.

Conversely, the railroad annoys me when it's not declared upfront. I have played in a very successful one-off at AmberCon NW where we were asked to give up a little of our usual role-playing latitude to aid in a very swashbuckling rollercoaster ride. Was good fun but I'm not sure I'd run or play anything longer than a one-off that way. I guess in this case I ceded permission to the wider range of activities that I'd consider.

So I now sit in a middle ground where I use specific and explicit contract to support the notion that players have permission to do many different things, including all important "ask questions whenever they want". I'm a long way from the immersion gaming that I once idolised, where personal, emotive experience (on the part of all players) was paramount.

To each their own taste, we could broaden this into a discussion about 'when to roll' (so to speak) but I think we're on the same wavelength. This, I feel, falls onto my point of how difference groups utilise systems (or lack thereof) in different ways.

If one describes how their going to achieve a task rather than blindly trying (one could say relying on the roll), then a bonus is to be added

I think that reveals a bit about how you're using your systems and the different approach I currently use.

In a game with situation resolution, the only way to achieve a goal is to describe the how and why of enacting some plan to achieve it. This can be quite simple or short term ("I lay down fire on the other side of the room, but I'm really just trying to keep their heads down while I escape out the side door") to much more complex, though I'd often break down a more complex sequence into a few, simpler stages.

The draw/roll made on that then helps determine whether that approach is going to succeed, with disasterous results potentially denying easier alternatives and huge success perhaps supporting near-future benefits to related situations.

I guess, viewed another way, this is consequence gaming. "If you do this, then that or the other might happen. Oh man, it's the other... well, what's your new plan?"

The term 'system' is very, very broad (coming from an engineer here) so shall we agree that the word is used to define a written ruleset as opposed to a utilitarian 'contract'?

I'm happy enough with that, without fighting over the words too much.

On long gaps between gaming sessions:

That an interesting dynamic, and not one that I think would suit me well.

I sympathise, though it's been a product of circumstance for me for the longest while. At Uni, I was playing/running 5 games a week, with weekend slots allowing for longer sessions. Crazy stuff. Since then, time and group fragmentation have made that difficult. Some friends still game once or twice a week but I find that my interest in sitting on the player side of the table has dwindled hugely (partly due to me being one of the few who actually talks game contract) and for my own purposes having larger gaps between sessions allows me the preparation time I desire to keep a coherent game.

I write a lot of supporting material that summarises sessions (often in the form of in-world reports or articles) and my players are kind enough to write themselves notes that help them pick up between sessions. All helps, but it does take a half hour at the beginning of each session to spin back up. We just plan that in; after all, we've got around 8 to 10 hours of play time we can use.

has either of you looked at the GenCon 2008 GM-Fu seminar, or Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering?

Not yet. I'll see if I can get my brain into a place to have a look over the next few days.

1) Where do you find yourself? Do you like being a character? Do you like being a GM? If so, what style do you like to employ, or how would you describe oneself in relation?

Already touched on above, but I'm almost entirely in the designer/referee space at the moment, and that's persisted for the past 5 or 6 years. I think that, partly, this is because I refuse to play games without explicit contract and many of the other referees I know don't appear to be interested in having that discussion or some of the staples I wish to include.

That said, I've always been on that end of the spectrum, even when I was playing much more. Picked up D&D (original boxed edition) when I was 8, didn't understand any of it, so started making up dungeon crawl adventures for me and my friends without any mechanism or character sheets or anything aside from "I say, you say". I think it took me 'til I was 10 or 11 before I really tried to go through the books again and then the dice and character sheets and so on all made much more sense.

I'd say I'm happiest in homegrown or heavily modified settings, either one-off or campaign, as referee.

2) We've touched on this idea of online 'tabletop' gaming, but how have you tried? Is there any you prefer?

I've MUSHed but never done PBEM or other tabletop alternatives. I guess that because my tendency is for a discursive, double layer (player-player and character-character) game that I like the fluidity of face-to-face play and as I play less frequently I can make special effort to travel to the game (or have people travel to me) so I don't worry about needing to fill in the blanks with remote play.

 

[luc]

I concur.