Forums of the Megaverse®

It's like food. You might like food X and the rest of your group assures you they love it. So, does that mean you just eat food X for the rest of your life? Or if you try another type, does that mean you can't go back to X? No.

Remember the joker in the dark knight? How he was pushing for batman to break his one rule and kill him. And not like a year from now. Not like a month from now. Not like, hey, if you want but if you actually want to head west and leave this for when you want, dats okay.

No, it was now.

Of course in terms of roleplay, this takes a character who, well, actually has principles of some kind. Or atleast you think they would. Not that a player who hasn't thought about their character at all can't suddenly find their character has some sort of principle. But it gets a bit unlikely - oh, they just wanna 'adventure'? What the hell does that mean, anyway? Well look, that's fine for a certain type of play, but were talking about another one here. We'll call it play type Y. For this one, this is a rubbish character - look, honestly you could probe around as GM, eventually find something maybe the character gives a crap about. But for play type Y, this is just wasting your time. This player does not get to play unless he can actually articulate (grunting doesn't work) what his character cares about in a narrow sense. No, in a broad sense doesn't count. Batmans one rule says something batman cares about. Saying 'I just wanna advance myself' or 'I just wanna adventure' - well, if you let that in, you'll find it's a long, long time before you do play type Y. If ever.

Nor does 15 pages of background story mean your character has principles, or worse, he has but the player will actually be offended if ala joker vs batmans one rule, those principles are put under stress.

An old example I found (someone else made this lil' treat) was that there is a boat on fire. And your on a boat near it. Which is perfectly fine and not at all on fire.

This is a sweet little example, because it's perfectly fine for the PC's to do absolutely nothing, and yet that is thematically amazing! Let go of your gaming history where the players are supposed to chase the GM's big ol' plot hook and go save that boat. That is not play style Y.

Can you appreciate what it says about the characters if they do nothing? And it's not 'these are fail characters', NO! It says THESE ARE CHARACTERS! They have their own moral compases, they have their own concerns and not everything is a rigged scenario to make their asses look golden.

It depends - if you can't stand the idea of a PC not saving every little person in distress that flops in front of them, then style Y isn't for you. Or if you feel nothing and ambivalent about them staying on the boat, then style Y isn't for you. It's only if you can appreciate the definition of character involved in such an action (lack of action).

Or maybe they try to save them (and maybe drown or burn doing so) or maybe something else. I only go on about the stay on the boat option because it really highlights what you appreciate about style Y, or if not, don't do it. It's also important mechanically, because things happen NOW. So inactivity leads to a result, not just a stalling of a result.

No need to defend your own prefered food type.

And I'm not sure I've fully described how to set up scenarios for type Y, so questions are welcome.

As this thread was clearly born out of the fact that you do not approve of my methods as a storyteller I will try not to take this personally and address the subject here rather than having my thread turned into garbage.

Also I'd just like to say that as someone who has a published two part Batman arc under his belt and worked (in a limited capacity) in some of Batman: Brave and the Bold and Justice League: Doom, that we've already addressed this very issue once before.

Here, enjoy!

I'd also like to point out that during my early teen years I sometimes spent weeks at a time (over the holidays) and every weekend hanging with my friends, playing video games, laughing or gaming. Now that I'm an aged punker and the rest of my cast and crew are nailed down with kids game night had become a bit of a thing of the past so when I rallied the troops I wanted something that would be thought provoking, interesting and most of all fun for my players.

To accomplish this I tried to remember all the things that I thought were the most fun or interesting and put them into play in my game. Not as Style X or Style Y but as the best amalgamation of the two as I could. I played off the back stories of my players, gave them opportunities, and had consequences flow from their action or inaction. I allowed them to choose their path. At no point did I block their path or prevent them from doing anything they wanted to do unless it was in direct opposition to an NPC who did their best to oppose them. As of yet not one NPC has been able to defeat my PC party through either legitimate or underhanded means--though many have come close.

The kind of story you are talking about is based around a pro-active hero which is all good and fine but it is by no means better than what I am doing. Even the Dark Knights midnight rooftop vigils are reactive. Heroic characters in both TV and media are normally reactive by nature. What complicates the situation further is when you have a group of players who are VERY creative but do not know the setting at all.

For example, the primary point of contention was that one of my players (The Ronin's Player) wanted to play an Exalted-style character. By which I mean a character who is a master martial artist sword fighter who is the absolute best at what he does and everyone worships the ground he walks on. Of course said player did not want to achieve or earn (or even learn how to use said abilities) he just wanted everything to be easily defeated by his sheer awesomeness. I told him that I did not want to run a high powered game and that I wanted everyone to be regular characters (humans, no dragons) but if he absolutely had no idea for a character who could be one of the many O.C.C.'s in Rifts: Ultimate Edition than he was more than welcome to look through the world books. He immediately went to Japan and made a dynastic Exalted character using Rifts rules. I told him that it was acceptable with the back story he had given me but if he wanted to be Emperor of Japan than it was something he had to earn in game through diligence and hard work. He was keen and agreed. Later, when the character was given opportunity after opportunity to reclaim his heritage, learn about his past (as the player had requested) he ignored this, and grew ever more frustrated that slaughtering his enemies was not enough to win. Then when he asked to change his family swords from the Storm Swords (See Rifts: Japan) to the (can't currently recall its name but it is the one of a kind and the greatest rune sword in Japan) and I said "No, I have already stated out your major antagonists and even if you have changed your mind and now your thing isn't storms or lightning, it WAS your families." He became obstructive, tried to get the party killed through leading them blindly into danger and then waited for a point that his character was pivotal and quit hoping that would end the game and he would be able to take over as Game Master of an Exalted Game.

No doubt you are wondering what any of this has to do with this thread?

Integrity and the storytelling process go hand in hand but you can neither rely completely on character driven stories (Unless writing a Romance novel) than you can rely entirely on plot. A good storyteller (and I am speaking of a player here) doesn't just throw scenario after scenario and doesn't just say "Well, what do you do?"

There has to be a combination. Good role playing, no great role playing, is when Players and the Game Master work together to create great stories and memorable encounters. And at the end of the day if one of my players always wants to win and be the best and has no consideration for his other party members or the setting. I don't want him in my game honestly. Sure, as a friend it is sad to see him go because there were a few nights that he was actually close to breaking through and becoming a player that can do more than kill with +11 to hit and +15 to parry but that never happened and it cannot be helped. Now I hear second hand complaints from players in his game where he lords over his Player Characters with Pet NPC's with unbelievably high stats with no explanation. And since he has left my game has drastically improved (I feel) as I slowly develop into a better spontaneous storyteller.

I've maintained story integrity, setting integrity and not ONCE have I cheaped out on one of my Player's victories! When they win they're happy! It's not always easy but if it was then how are they special? If my players are now good enough that they can think on their feet and come up with creative ways that they can use simple first level invocations like Cleanse to defeat their enemies why would I change my storytelling style and make everything about stats or ruling a country?

My stories are about the journey, not the motivation, not the lewt, not the Ninja's or Space Australian mutants. Its about the player characters, who they are, who they will become, what they will do and all that will stand in their way. Sure... maybe its easier to just build a scene instead of a scenario and how the players interact with the people in the bar (which is a very common style of play in the chatrooms here) but to me I would much rather pretend that is the situation than have one of the PC's notice that the barmaid is armed and has the tattoo of a rival gang on her wrist moments before everyone in the bar reveal their true identities in a take-no-prisoners ambush! I'd rather a game where the player finds out that that maybe he has been lied too his entire life and now must question who's side he is on. I'd rather bring back the orc that they killed in the first adventure with a bionic arm and a whole-lot of hate than...

Well, than run the kind of the adventure where I am entirely a spectator. I want to cater to my players. I want to do that. Also where as its nice to have cemented characters, normally thats something that happens near the end of an act. With a team of level 1 Player Characters who have never played Rifts before... ho have not games in years... would you really tell them that unless they wow you with some hard this is the driving force in my character's life story, that they can't play?

Sp, I put forth the idea that X and Y are ingredients and no single one should be exclusive of the other. Where as letting a story unfold is easy and letting the PC's be king of their own world without opposition might make people happy... and MIGHT be a good way to entertain people. I feel (and these are my personal feelings) that such a thing is cheap, hackneyed and lazy storytelling. That is just my 2 cents.

In short, I would hope that if a player did not like my game that they would have the maturity to bring it to my attention, see if we could work it out, and if not respectfully bow out and if no one was enjoying it...... I just wouldn't run it? Seems pretty simple to me. Don't like it, don't play.

Hi there,

Noon,

Noon wrote:An old example I found (someone else made this lil' treat) was that there is a boat on fire. And your on a boat near it. Which is perfectly fine and not at all on fire.

This is a sweet little example, because it's perfectly fine for the PC's to do absolutely nothing, and yet that is thematically amazing!

Is it?

I think I understand why you make that example. The Joker example was fine, but I fail to see what is so thematically amazing about PCs seeing a boat burning down and doing nothing. Mind you, I do not mind if PCs choose inaction and I do understand that there are situations that make inaction recommendable (tactically for example) or fit a PC's character/alignment/mindset/leitmotif/whatever, I just do not understand what gets the situation (where you state no reasons but the pure facts of the event to explain why the PCs remain inactive) you describe to anything even remotely near to amazing. I mean, it does seem amazing to see characters inert in that scenario, but that seems hardly thematically interesting or astounding.

For the rest of what you wrote, I honestly do not understand what you are driving at. As I read it you advocate, "hey, GMs, players need to be able to choose what to do, do not railroad them". That is not really a new style of play, but I would underwrite it.

I am looking forward to you expanding your statement to a new dimension.

***

Akashic Soldier,

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Spoiler:

...

Also I'd just like to say that as someone who has a published two part Batman arc under his belt and worked (in a limited capacity) in some of Batman: Brave and the Bold and Justice League: Doom, that we've already addressed this very issue once before.

Here, enjoy!

I'd also like to point out that during my early teen years I sometimes spent weeks at a time (over the holidays) and every weekend hanging with my friends, playing video games, laughing or gaming. Now that I'm an aged punker and the rest of my cast and crew are nailed down with kids game night had become a bit of a thing of the past so when I rallied the troops I wanted something that would be thought provoking, interesting and most of all fun for my players.

To accomplish this I tried to remember all the things that I thought were the most fun or interesting and put them into play in my game. Not as Style X or Style Y but as the best amalgamation of the two as I could. I played off the back stories of my players, gave them opportunities, and had consequences flow from their action or inaction. I allowed them to choose their path. At no point did I block their path or prevent them from doing anything they wanted to do unless it was in direct opposition to an NPC who did their best to oppose them. As of yet not one NPC has been able to defeat my PC party through either legitimate or underhanded means--though many have come close.

The kind of story you are talking about is based around a pro-active hero which is all good and fine but it is by no means better than what I am doing. Even the Dark Knights midnight rooftop vigils are reactive. Heroic characters in both TV and media are normally reactive by nature. What complicates the situation further is when you have a group of players who are VERY creative but do not know the setting at all.

For example, the primary point of contention was that one of my players (The Ronin's Player) wanted to play an Exalted-style character. By which I mean a character who is a master martial artist sword fighter who is the absolute best at what he does and everyone worships the ground he walks on. Of course said player did not want to achieve or earn (or even learn how to use said abilities) he just wanted everything to be easily defeated by his sheer awesomeness. I told him that I did not want to run a high powered game and that I wanted everyone to be regular characters (humans, no dragons) but if he absolutely had no idea for a character who could be one of the many O.C.C.'s in Rifts: Ultimate Edition than he was more than welcome to look through the world books. He immediately went to Japan and made a dynastic Exalted character using Rifts rules. I told him that it was acceptable with the back story he had given me but if he wanted to be Emperor of Japan than it was something he had to earn in game through diligence and hard work. He was keen and agreed. Later, when the character was given opportunity after opportunity to reclaim his heritage, learn about his past (as the player had requested) he ignored this, and grew ever more frustrated that slaughtering his enemies was not enough to win. Then when he asked to change his family swords from the Storm Swords (See Rifts: Japan) to the (can't currently recall its name but it is the one of a kind and the greatest rune sword in Japan) and I said "No, I have already stated out your major antagonists and even if you have changed your mind and now your thing isn't storms or lightning, it WAS your families." He became obstructive, tried to get the party killed through leading them blindly into danger and then waited for a point that his character was pivotal and quit hoping that would end the game and he would be able to take over as Game Master of an Exalted Game.

No doubt you are wondering what any of this has to do with this thread?

Integrity and the storytelling process go hand in hand but you can neither rely completely on character driven stories (Unless writing a Romance novel) than you can rely entirely on plot. A good storyteller (and I am speaking of a player here) doesn't just throw scenario after scenario and doesn't just say "Well, what do you do?"

There has to be a combination. Good role playing, no great role playing, is when Players and the Game Master work together to create great stories and memorable encounters. And at the end of the day if one of my players always wants to win and be the best and has no consideration for his other party members or the setting. I don't want him in my game honestly. Sure, as a friend it is sad to see him go because there were a few nights that he was actually close to breaking through and becoming a player that can do more than kill with +11 to hit and +15 to parry but that never happened and it cannot be helped. Now I hear second hand complaints from players in his game where he lords over his Player Characters with Pet NPC's with unbelievably high stats with no explanation. And since he has left my game has drastically improved (I feel) as I slowly develop into a better spontaneous storyteller.

I've maintained story integrity, setting integrity and not ONCE have I cheaped out on one of my Player's victories! When they win they're happy! It's not always easy but if it was then how are they special? If my players are now good enough that they can think on their feet and come up with creative ways that they can use simple first level invocations like Cleanse to defeat their enemies why would I change my storytelling style and make everything about stats or ruling a country?

My stories are about the journey, not the motivation, not the lewt, not the Ninja's or Space Australian mutants. Its about the player characters, who they are, who they will become, what they will do and all that will stand in their way. Sure... maybe its easier to just build a scene instead of a scenario and how the players interact with the people in the bar (which is a very common style of play in the chatrooms here) but to me I would much rather pretend that is the situation than have one of the PC's notice that the barmaid is armed and has the tattoo of a rival gang on her wrist moments before everyone in the bar reveal their true identities in a take-no-prisoners ambush! I'd rather a game where the player finds out that that maybe he has been lied too his entire life and now must question who's side he is on. I'd rather bring back the orc that they killed in the first adventure with a bionic arm and a whole-lot of hate than...

Well, than run the kind of the adventure where I am entirely a spectator. I want to cater to my players. I want to do that. Also where as its nice to have cemented characters, normally thats something that happens near the end of an act. With a team of level 1 Player Characters who have never played Rifts before... ho have not games in years... would you really tell them that unless they wow you with some hard this is the driving force in my character's life story, that they can't play?

Sp, I put forth the idea that X and Y are ingredients and no single one should be exclusive of the other. Where as letting a story unfold is easy and letting the PC's be king of their own world without opposition might make people happy... and MIGHT be a good way to entertain people. I feel (and these are my personal feelings) that such a thing is cheap, hackneyed and lazy storytelling. That is just my 2 cents.

In short, I would hope that if a player did not like my game that they would have the maturity to bring it to my attention, see if we could work it out, and if not respectfully bow out and if no one was enjoying it...... I just wouldn't run it? Seems pretty simple to me. Don't like it, don't play.

EDIT: I'll also add that without The Ronin's player spending 30 minutes going back and forth over what his next attack is going to look like or be my group is able to finish vast amounts (normally entire an episode of a show worth of story material) in a single 4-6 hour game session and everyone is having fun.

Kudos, a wonderful post.

I very much agree to the gist:

- GMs offer adventure and, what is more, a (seeminly) living world
- part of the GM's job is to offer things (events, NPCs, etc.) that allow the players to get involved, to develope an attachment to the world, thus gaming experience
- player involvement is important
- Players are free to choose what to do in the world
- some choices maybe more pressing
- players can choose inaction
- every action / inaction may have (often will) have consequences
- the relationship action/inaction --> consequence helps massively to make the world (seem) alive

Cheers
Hendrik

Hendrik wrote:Kudos, a wonderful post.

I very much agree to the gist:

- GMs offer adventure and, what is more, a (seeminly) living world
- part of the GM's job is to offer things (events, NPCs, etc.) that allow the players to get involved, to develope an attachment to the world, thus gaming experience
- player involvement is important
- Players are free to choose what to do in the world
- some choices maybe more pressing
- players can choose inaction
- every action / inaction may have (often will) have consequences
- the relationship action/inaction --> consequence helps massively to make the world (seem) alive

Case in point; a PC in my campiagn last night (no names)...well... he's a massive "recreational" user. There is a certain fel-power that is attracted to that kinda person. Now then, back story is two of the more pure PC's in the crew had been possessed by said un-named power several months previous (in-game time), but had managed to be exorcised successfuly.
That's not to say the demon spirits weren't gonna come back to play at some point.
Enter stage center, our weed-smoking boozing merc. Not too bad, but he's "been going through some thangs." and needed to relax so out comes bong-of-doom. Here's where actions have cosequences: I've allowed this PC to partake without any game-negatives or legal reprecussions. Unfortunately, the (yes, random dice time) demon spirits happend to be flitting about the city where the other two ex-posessees were but of course couldn't get back in, but "Hey...lookee here at this fine fellow oh and goody goody goody, he's already weakend his mental and spiritual defenses by doing stuff that falls DIRECTLY under our master/mistresses aspect!"

What was going to just be a few whispered taunts and optical halucinations turned into life & death because the PC (and player) panicked; he called up the entire rest of the team and did the absolute WORST thing imaginable;
1) The player used PLAYER (not PC; he didn't have the skill at all) knowledge to identify the demonic power responsible for the unpleasent audio/visual Tom-foolery. I didn't railroad him, I in fact sat back and SMILED. HIS choice to break the rules.
2) The PC "named" the power. Demonology 101 kids; Names have power and invoking a name will SUMMON part of that power.

Now what was going to be an ammusing bit o the GM screwing with the PC's minds, now has turned into "Ummm...who opend the Hellmouth...again?"

In short, I do not have yes men, I do NOT railroad, I allow my players to even cheat and break universal-cardinal rules on occasion; on the understanding it WILL come back to bite them.

Akashic Soldier wrote:As this thread was clearly born out of the fact that you do not approve of my methods as a storyteller

You seem rather over ready to read non approval of your methods? If you drink and drive, I'd disapprove of that. I don't think roleplay is serious and worthy of 'disapproval' like that, is it?

Not as Style X or Style Y but as the best amalgamation of the two as I could.

It's not doing Y to amalgamate it with something else. You can't do vegetarian cooking but with just a lil bit of meat thrown in.

The kind of story you are talking about is based around a pro-active hero which is all good and fine but it is by no means better than what I am doing. Even the Dark Knights midnight rooftop vigils are reactive. Heroic characters in both TV and media are normally reactive by nature.

Looking past that roleplay is a different medium, are you saying the only way to do it is to emulate what TV and other media have done?

Integrity and the storytelling process go hand in hand but you can neither rely completely on character driven stories (Unless writing a Romance novel) than you can rely entirely on plot. A good storyteller (and I am speaking of a player here) doesn't just throw scenario after scenario and doesn't just say "Well, what do you do?"

Actually you can rely on character motivation driven stories. You can't rely on them lasting forever and ever, like many TV shows or sequels do so as to pay off their creators mortgages. Instead the length of the series is dictated by the character motivation itself. The character(s) takes that over.

So I'll add another caveat, if you want a forever campaign, type Y isn't for you.

My stories are about the journey, not the motivation,

Yes.

Well, than run the kind of the adventure where I am entirely a spectator.

I'm not sure what you mean by spectator - you'd still be doing alot, but some pre written story wouldn't have a presence in play. Is that what you mean by spectator, you don't get to play (out) a story you wrote up?

Also where as its nice to have cemented characters, normally thats something that happens near the end of an act. With a team of level 1 Player Characters who have never played Rifts before... ho have not games in years... would you really tell them that unless they wow you with some hard this is the driving force in my character's life story, that they can't play?

You added the 'wow you' bit. The motivation doesn't have to wow at all. It could be as simple as 'keep my family together and happy', which in a war torn setting, is gunna face some stress.

Anyway, if you did require it, then they wouldn't be cemented near the end of an act, they'd be cemented at the start.

If I didn't think it was actually relatively easy for 99% of the population to figure a character motivation, maybe I'd hesitate on the insistance. Dice rolling requires basic math skills - making up a character motivation is about as simple. Batmans one rule isn't exactly complicated. Or hit me up with players you've had who stumble and fall at their character caring about stuff and having a motivation? I just don't think I've met anyone who'd have trouble (maybe my 99% should be 100%).

Sp, I put forth the idea that X and Y are ingredients and no single one should be exclusive of the other.

There's no reason one ever has to even try type Y play. But nor is this a reason to never try it by itself without trying to mix in a kitchen sink.

Where as letting a story unfold is easy and letting the PC's be king of their own world without opposition might make people happy... and MIGHT be a good way to entertain people. I feel (and these are my personal feelings) that such a thing is cheap, hackneyed and lazy storytelling. That is just my 2 cents.

Yeah, that play type Z! Lay the boot in man, give it a kick!

I can see why you're leery - you're quite prepared to bring out the 'cheap', 'hackneyed' and 'lazy storytelling' bullets and fire them. So you probably think I'm just as ready to pull them out as you are. Please, just because your ready to shoot, don't think I am just as much.

Anyway, you're talking about some other play style entirely. It doesn't seem to matter whether I say they could drown or burn trying to save the people on the other boat, my words are read as "BLAH BLAH BLAH king of world without opposition BLAH BLAH BLAH".

EDIT: I'll also add that without The Ronin's player spending 30 minutes going back and forth over what his next attack is going to look like or be my group is able to finish vast amounts (normally entire an episode of a show worth of story material) in a single 4-6 hour game session and everyone is having fun.

There's a weird use of the word 'fun' in roleplaying culture in general. It's like saying 'I want to have food!'. There are many types of food. There are many types of fun. Not all food is compatable with all food. Same with fun. If you want pizza but get chinese food, sure it's food, but it's not what you wanted. Same with fun - quoting monty python sketches is fun. But it's not the sort of fun I want for the entire 3-4 hours when I came to roleplay.

That said it seemed rude of the ronin player to drop out like that and yeah, a bit manipulative. To be frank, I'm not sure he would have liked play type Y, either.

In the end I guess the character motivation is one which seems in some way to contradict itself. Batman A: Wants to stop criminals but B: Will not kill.

Hendrik wrote:I mean, it does seem amazing to see characters inert in that scenario, but that seems hardly thematically interesting or astounding.

Well, you say amazing?

Do you mean something like amazingly dissapointing that the PC's don't go and save those people?

It's a bit like savouring the bitterness in beer. The bitterness of them not going and saving them is a flavour with...many dimensions. It's especially interesting (in a dark sort of way) when you hear about some guy in real life who tries to break up a fight or stop some guy hassling a woman and...gets killed over it. In real life there's no one to fudge for the hero. So what about the PC's - what if they would die trying to save anyone on the other boat?

Perhaps it's right that they do nothing? That's the sort of universe they live in?

It's the bitterness in that 'right', the moral examination - it's something one might find interesting and engaging.

But if you don't like it, type Y isn't for you *shrug*. Fair enough.

I don't think the characters have to save Everyone, but if they don't do Something occasionally then they might as well stay at home. As a GM, I can throw plot hooks for various stories/scenarios, but if they players don't take any of them, then the game is effectively over.

gaaahhhh wrote:I don't think the characters have to save Everyone, but if they don't do Something occasionally then they might as well stay at home. As a GM, I can throw plot hooks for various stories/scenarios, but if they players don't take any of them, then the game is effectively over.

My player's Characters can have days that they sit at home and do nothing. I don't waste my time role playing such uneventful days. No one (except normally that character's player) cares what color socks they are going to wear or what type of food they are going to order. I assume all that boring non-sense happens off camera. Its okay to use it as filler between scenes and play out conversation and interaction but I might run the "today nothing interesting happens" once I wouldn't use it as the formula for my game.

It is lazy storytelling. Players come to a table expecting excitement, adventure and intrigue! It's the game Master's job to build that world for them (See Rifts: Ultimate Edition). The whole reason I developed my controversial D4 rule was because the Ronin's player felt it was important to play out walking to the fridge or picking out his meal off a menu 20 minutes after the other players had ordered.

My point here is, gaaahhhh, you're right.

I've already stated my opinion on storytelling (as a career and as a game master) and other people are welcome to refute it but I will no longer be participating in this thread as much of what I have said has already been intentionally taken out of context by the original poster by copy and pasting fragments of my sentences in an attempt to ignite debate or argue. In short, Game Masters have a responsibility to build a living world for their players and make sure EVERYONE has fun, the Game Master is the director and the editor and and the players are the actors but both sides of the coin play a part as the Story writer.

'nuff said!

Akashic Soldier wrote:It is lazy storytelling. Players come to a table expecting excitement, adventure and intrigue! It's the game Master's job to build that world for them (See Rifts: Ultimate Edition). The whole reason I developed my controversial D4 rule was because the Ronin's player felt it was important to play out walking to the fridge or picking out his meal off a menu 20 minutes after the other players had ordered.

To address this specific point. No, it's not actually lazy story telling. Backstory is important, but there's limits. Noting everything that happens is needless and a waste of time. Trivial points that don't matter in the greater scope of the character or story arch should by and large be left out. This is the entire reason I can't completely like some stories (I'm looking at you Lord of the Rings), when over half of it could be gutted out because nothing meaningful happens..

Character development is at least 25% of any RPG, and it to me is the most important aspect, knowing a character and how they react to things. But their favorite food has almost no baring on this, or some particular stretch of land they barely take the time to see because they're just going form one place to the next. I fast track a lot of travel in my games, because nothing eventful happens.

Noon wrote:

Hendrik wrote:I mean, it does seem amazing to see characters inert in that scenario, but that seems hardly thematically interesting or astounding.

Well, you say amazing?

Spoiler:

Do you mean something like amazingly dissapointing that the PC's don't go and save those people?

It's a bit like savouring the bitterness in beer. The bitterness of them not going and saving them is a flavour with...many dimensions. It's especially interesting (in a dark sort of way) when you hear about some guy in real life who tries to break up a fight or stop some guy hassling a woman and...gets killed over it. In real life there's no one to fudge for the hero. So what about the PC's - what if they would die trying to save anyone on the other boat?

Perhaps it's right that they do nothing? That's the sort of universe they live in?

It's the bitterness in that 'right', the moral examination - it's something one might find interesting and engaging.

But if you don't like it, type Y isn't for you *shrug*. Fair enough.

I did not say I did not like it. I did say, however, that I do not see anything new about your suggested "new style of play" and asked you to expand to further enlighten me, which I note you did not choose to do.

Playing in a RPG as a PC is all about making choices. That is the same in the way you seem to advocate as in AS'.

The only "new" (if that) in your way is to stress that inaction is a legitimate choice. I have no beef with that. I think it does not necessarily make for ... adventure ... but why not.

Your boat example offers no background, no information to actually think why or why not inaction was "legitimate" or a "good" or "the best choice", etc. But that was not your point, you wanted to stay abstract and have the example isolated, the example without perspective. Therefore, the only reply that you can really expect or get is that, "yes, (basically) inaction is a choice the players can make", whether that is "right", "good" or "fun" must by the way you put your example remain unanswered.

The point, however, is that any action or inaction, at least at my table, will stand a good chance to entice a reaction (which does NOT mean that something will happen right then and there and also not that I would force this in any case, just saying it is possible, depending on the circumstances more or less likely).

Let me try to give some perspective here. Scenario: players let the other boat burn down, the people on it die. What can happen as a result. Examples:

- Nothing. The other people just die, the boat just burns down. Nobody ever hears of this, nothing ever comes from it. Maybe the party later loots the boat. In any case, they will just have to live with this, but that is their roleplaying job.
- Maybe the boat explodes (maybe there is ammunition on it, maybe the players' boat is "too close") or they loose control of the ship and it moves towards the players ship (it could ram, it could swerve off, the fire could spread) and harms the players' boat and/or the players themselves.
- Maybe someone else (a third boat or an airplane etc, too far away to help, close enough to see) observes the situation and the players are prosecuted for "failure to assist a person in danger" or they are not prosecuted and the observer later meets them and tries to console them ("you really could not do anything there ...").
- Maybe the other boatpeople manage to kill the fire, survive
- Maybe they then attack our players' ship because perhaps their boat is so damaged by the fire that it is almost unable to move and they now want the players' ship as it is a question of their survival.
- Maybe the boat does go down but a couple of sailors from that ship survive. Do the players take them on board? Do they shoot them in the water (their boat may be too cramped, rations may be low)?
- Maybe they don't take Jake on board, but Jake gets to the coast, survives. His whole family was on that boat and he swears to get revenge. Voila, an enemy.
- etc. etc.

It does not matter what is "good" or "bad", just that as the players are free to act or not act so may the denizens of the world react or not react. I am not out to get my players. As in real life carelessness, egoism and even "dark deeds" can reap great rewards or get punished. Sometimes you go scot-free for a thing you did but punished for a deed you are innocent of, which can be a great story, too (Camus, The Stranger).

Noon wrote:An old example I found (someone else made this lil' treat) was that there is a boat on fire. And your on a boat near it. Which is perfectly fine and not at all on fire. This is a sweet little example, because it's perfectly fine for the PC's to do absolutely nothing, and yet that is thematically amazing! Let go of your gaming history where the players are supposed to chase the GM's big ol' plot hook and go save that boat. That is not play style Y.

You said "amazing". I just took it up. What I do not understand is why you said that your boat example is "sweet" and why it is "thematically amazing" that the PCs do nothing.

It is the choice of the PCs to act or react, to be active or inactive. The GM can offer an adventure, he can display events, he can invite and entice to take part in them, but it is up to the players to decide what to do with that. I have never been angry if players did not play my adventure or react to a cue I gave but rather did something else.

Cheers
Hendrik

Hendrik,

- Nothing. The other people just die, the boat just burns down. Nobody ever hears of this, nothing ever comes from it. Maybe the party later loots the boat. In any case, they will just have to live with this, but that is their roleplaying job.
- Maybe the boat explodes (maybe there is ammunition on it, maybe the players' boat is "too close") or they loose control of the ship and it moves towards the players ship (it could ram, it could swerve off, the fire could spread) and harms the players' boat and/or the players themselves.
- Maybe someone else (a third boat or an airplane etc, too far away to help, close enough to see) observes the situation and the players are prosecuted for "failure to assist a person in danger" or they are not prosecuted and the observer later meets them and tries to console them ("you really could not do anything there ...").
- Maybe the other boatpeople manage to kill the fire, survive
- Maybe they then attack our players' ship because perhaps their boat is so damaged by the fire that it is almost unable to move and they now want the players' ship as it is a question of their survival.
- Maybe the boat does go down but a couple of sailors from that ship survive. Do the players take them on board? Do they shoot them in the water (their boat may be too cramped, rations may be low)?
- Maybe they don't take Jake on board, but Jake gets to the coast, survives. His whole family was on that boat and he swears to get revenge. Voila, an enemy.
- etc. etc.

I've probably not described it properly in the first post, but the direction you head in with results is basically playing out the outer world - ie, what could happen next.

I'm talking about a trial of character values, to show through dire situation, what they are. Because one is interested in finding out what sort of man (or woman) each character is. Character examination, not world examination. With this, play type Y, you don't look just for whatever old thing would happen next, you look for things that might happen which will further tell you what sort of man or woman the PC is. You even twist reality, break it even (horror!) if the dire scenario is good enough, to ensure character examining scenarios come up. Because 'what would happen next' is not what your playing for 'character examination' is what your playing for first and foremost ('what would happen next' comes second to that). And it's always a scenario that they can't put off til latter.

If you've ever had the classic 'you kill the kobolds, go into their treasure room and find...kobold children' come up, was it a non interest moment for you what sort of moral stance the PC's would take? Sure you might say 'I'd just run whatever they do', but if you have no interest in how whatever they do defines their characters morality, then type Y isn't for you. Indeed you might even be looking at it thinking 'Huh, there's nothing there - you just run what they do, then you run what they do after that, and so on'.

I mean, take a character who slits the kobold childrens throats one by one. If your thoughts are "Wow, how dark is this guy? I gotta think of a scene to probe just how far down that darkness goes!" you're into Y and playing for it. If your thoughts are "Well, how long does it take for kobold children to rot? Will that attract carrion crawlers? Did any other kobolds see this and escape to tell others?" or similar then you're not doing Y.

Your list above appears to be the latter - just thinking about what physical events might happen next. Which is fine! I'm just saying that if you think your doing what I'm talking about, you're not (nor do you need to at all).

gaaahhhh wrote:I don't think the characters have to save Everyone, but if they don't do Something occasionally then they might as well stay at home. As a GM, I can throw plot hooks for various stories/scenarios, but if they players don't take any of them, then the game is effectively over.

When playing under the traditional 'the PC's have no motives or goals and if the GM doesn't give them one, they just mill about (because they are already rich enough or skilled enough not to die of starvation by milling around)', that is true.

But there are even some roleplay systems floating around out there which ask the player for character goals.

It depends - if your players could never think of anything to fill in for a character goal, well then play type Y wont work for them, I totally grant.

Noon wrote:Hendrik,

- Nothing. The other people just die, the boat just burns down. Nobody ever hears of this, nothing ever comes from it. Maybe the party later loots the boat. In any case, they will just have to live with this, but that is their roleplaying job.
- Maybe the boat explodes (maybe there is ammunition on it, maybe the players' boat is "too close") or they loose control of the ship and it moves towards the players ship (it could ram, it could swerve off, the fire could spread) and harms the players' boat and/or the players themselves.
- Maybe someone else (a third boat or an airplane etc, too far away to help, close enough to see) observes the situation and the players are prosecuted for "failure to assist a person in danger" or they are not prosecuted and the observer later meets them and tries to console them ("you really could not do anything there ...").
- Maybe the other boatpeople manage to kill the fire, survive
- Maybe they then attack our players' ship because perhaps their boat is so damaged by the fire that it is almost unable to move and they now want the players' ship as it is a question of their survival.
- Maybe the boat does go down but a couple of sailors from that ship survive. Do the players take them on board? Do they shoot them in the water (their boat may be too cramped, rations may be low)?
- Maybe they don't take Jake on board, but Jake gets to the coast, survives. His whole family was on that boat and he swears to get revenge. Voila, an enemy.
- etc. etc.

I've probably not described it properly in the first post, but the direction you head in with results is basically playing out the outer world - ie, what could happen next.

I'm talking about a trial of character values, to show through dire situation, what they are. Because one is interested in finding out what sort of man (or woman) each character is. Character examination, not world examination. With this, play type Y, you don't look just for whatever old thing would happen next, you look for things that might happen which will further tell you what sort of man or woman the PC is. You even twist reality, break it even (horror!) if the dire scenario is good enough, to ensure character examining scenarios come up. Because 'what would happen next' is not what your playing for 'character examination' is what your playing for first and foremost ('what would happen next' comes second to that). And it's always a scenario that they can't put off til latter.

If you've ever had the classic 'you kill the kobolds, go into their treasure room and find...kobold children' come up, was it a non interest moment for you what sort of moral stance the PC's would take? Sure you might say 'I'd just run whatever they do', but if you have no interest in how whatever they do defines their characters morality, then type Y isn't for you. Indeed you might even be looking at it thinking 'Huh, there's nothing there - you just run what they do, then you run what they do after that, and so on'.

I mean, take a character who slits the kobold childrens throats one by one. If your thoughts are "Wow, how dark is this guy? I gotta think of a scene to probe just how far down that darkness goes!" you're into Y and playing for it. If your thoughts are "Well, how long does it take for kobold children to rot? Will that attract carrion crawlers? Did any other kobolds see this and escape to tell others?" or similar then you're not doing Y.

Your list above appears to be the latter - just thinking about what physical events might happen next. Which is fine! I'm just saying that if you think your doing what I'm talking about, you're not (nor do you need to at all).

"Let's be serial killers" is a possible playstyle, but I certainly wouldn't want to run for or play with such a group.

Noon wrote:When playing under the traditional 'the PC's have no motives or goals and if the GM doesn't give them one, they just mill about (because they are already rich enough or skilled enough not to die of starvation by milling around)', that is true.

But there are even some roleplay systems floating around out there which ask the player for character goals.

It depends - if your players could never think of anything to fill in for a character goal, well then play type Y wont work for them, I totally grant.

You have some rather ****** up traditions if that is what you consider 'traditional'. Even the worst players and game masters that I've played with still had PCs with their own goals and motives*. It certainly isn't something you need your roleplaying system to cover.
The closest I've heard of is the 'passive player' that tags along with everyone else without saying much, who's motivation is tagging along and enjoying everyone else's stories. Most of time that type is a boon to other people, because they will tend to get attached to those with interesting motivations and tales, ultimately helping them to achieve their goals.

Also, while I still can't decide what you were trying to get at in the original post, I can say that I have understood and relatively agreed with everyone else in this thread so far. Perhaps this 'type X' of yours is actually the new thing, because it doesn't seem that the rest of us have had any problems in that respect.

*(Albeit terrible ones, but they still actively pursued them, unfortunately.)

Noon wrote:Hendrik,

Spoiler:

Hendrik wrote:- Nothing. The other people just die, the boat just burns down. Nobody ever hears of this, nothing ever comes from it. Maybe the party later loots the boat. In any case, they will just have to live with this, but that is their roleplaying job.
- Maybe the boat explodes (maybe there is ammunition on it, maybe the players' boat is "too close") or they loose control of the ship and it moves towards the players ship (it could ram, it could swerve off, the fire could spread) and harms the players' boat and/or the players themselves.
- Maybe someone else (a third boat or an airplane etc, too far away to help, close enough to see) observes the situation and the players are prosecuted for "failure to assist a person in danger" or they are not prosecuted and the observer later meets them and tries to console them ("you really could not do anything there ...").
- Maybe the other boatpeople manage to kill the fire, survive
- Maybe they then attack our players' ship because perhaps their boat is so damaged by the fire that it is almost unable to move and they now want the players' ship as it is a question of their survival.
- Maybe the boat does go down but a couple of sailors from that ship survive. Do the players take them on board? Do they shoot them in the water (their boat may be too cramped, rations may be low)?
- Maybe they don't take Jake on board, but Jake gets to the coast, survives. His whole family was on that boat and he swears to get revenge. Voila, an enemy.
- etc. etc.

I've probably not described it properly in the first post, but the direction you head in with results is basically playing out the outer world - ie, what could happen next.

I'm talking about a trial of character values, to show through dire situation, what they are. Because one is interested in finding out what sort of man (or woman) each character is. Character examination, not world examination. With this, play type Y, you don't look just for whatever old thing would happen next, you look for things that might happen which will further tell you what sort of man or woman the PC is. You even twist reality, break it even (horror!) if the dire scenario is good enough, to ensure character examining scenarios come up. Because 'what would happen next' is not what your playing for 'character examination' is what your playing for first and foremost ('what would happen next' comes second to that). And it's always a scenario that they can't put off til latter.

If you've ever had the classic 'you kill the kobolds, go into their treasure room and find...kobold children' come up, was it a non interest moment for you what sort of moral stance the PC's would take? Sure you might say 'I'd just run whatever they do', but if you have no interest in how whatever they do defines their characters morality, then type Y isn't for you. Indeed you might even be looking at it thinking 'Huh, there's nothing there - you just run what they do, then you run what they do after that, and so on'.

I mean, take a character who slits the kobold childrens throats one by one. If your thoughts are "Wow, how dark is this guy? I gotta think of a scene to probe just how far down that darkness goes!" you're into Y and playing for it. If your thoughts are "Well, how long does it take for kobold children to rot? Will that attract carrion crawlers? Did any other kobolds see this and escape to tell others?" or similar then you're not doing Y.

Your list above appears to be the latter - just thinking about what physical events might happen next. Which is fine! I'm just saying that if you think your doing what I'm talking about, you're not (nor do you need to at all).

Hi there, Noon,

thought enables decision, decision enables action or the result may be inaction. True. My list was "just" about events, true, but IMO needed to put your isolated (physical) event into a necessary perspective (actually showing different conceivable chains of events).

Events and characters will interact, or to phrase it differently: make for the situations - even in the Kobold example - that will give the characters a chance to make their (internal) decisions. Conversely, a character decides something and then acts or does not act, either may result in an event. In any case, my point is that the world will turn anyway, no matter if the characters act or do not, but their actions or inactions may influence the world and vice versa.

That said, thank you for expanding.

I think I now better understand where you are heading. I think what you want is to focus the game on moral dilemma. If you are, as you say, about character examination, then such dilemma or any answers to it will by needs have to be externalized somehow. It is really like in a theatre drama. If a character has a dilemma, he may either act [pun intended] or talk ("Is this a dagger which I see before me..." and all that). If he does neither, forgetting for a moment that pondering silence does only rarely make for exciting times, none in the party will witness the point of your game - the examination of character.

I think Armorlord said it very well:

Armorlord wrote:Even the worst players and game masters that I've played with still had PCs with their own goals and motives*. It certainly isn't something you need your roleplaying system to cover....

Any roleplaying system allows for and by far most encourage "character building" (not rolling up, but giving the PC motivations etc). Even the AD&D 1st edition GMG had a whole section about motivations, character (in the sense of moral fiber or the absence of it), etc. all far beyond the often - unjustly - ridiculed alignment systems, which are actually just the same, only burned down to the abstract essentials of a moral and ethical compass. Palladium here does more and gives a 10 point (examples) list of alignment do's and don'ts, but the principle is still the same.

***

In short, I do not think that you advocate something new.

On the contrary, by voiding the value of events (which you will have anyway, unless you want to play the "Satre's NO EXIT" -Game), and only that offers the external eventlessness you advocate), although even your boat example is not eventless as it is a genuine event, your example is merely without context, I think you take something very important from a RPG: life. Life is about context.

Macbeth would never have had a chance for his dagger soliloquy if events had not given the impetus that his desires/wishes/greed fight with his sense of duty/fealty/loyalty/law - NOW, the king is under his roof, sleeping, in his reach, soon his wife will tell him that the guards are asleep ... and, MacBeth has decided to kill his king. BUT, he is torn between guilt and a burning ambition. Does he commit regicide? ... Great play, great "internal" event, as typical for theatre externalized by speech (and a couple of gestures, including exciting stuff as "wild eyes and hair"), but events pushed that and events will follow from his actions (or incations, only the play is so much more interesting because the king IS killed etc. etc.).

In your food analogy you do not offer a different dish at all but a milkshake without milk.

Cheers
Hendrik

gaaahhhh wrote:"Let's be serial killers" is a possible playstyle, but I certainly wouldn't want to run for or play with such a group.

Well, you just killed the kobold childrens parents and were fine with that?

"But that was in honourable combat!"

What's so honourable about making orphans?

Play type Y asks how it's to be a serial killer to not let the kobold children starve to death, yet you're a hero for having killed their parents?

Maybe you always do subdual damage in whatever RPG you play (like I play dues ex, stunning enemies where I can)? Fair enough, the above doesn't apply then - just wrote it in case.

Hendrik,

Hendrik wrote:I think I now better understand where you are heading. I think what you want is to focus the game on moral dilemma. If you are, as you say, about character examination, then such dilemma or any answers to it will by needs have to be externalized somehow. It is really like in a theatre drama. If a character has a dilemma, he may either act [pun intended] or talk ("Is this a dagger which I see before me..." and all that). If he does neither, forgetting for a moment that pondering silence does only rarely make for exciting times, none in the party will witness the point of your game - the examination of character.

The externalisation is that players are prepared to read inactivity near a calamitous event as a reflection of character. Those who wont do this or can't do this don't want to play type Y/can't play it. In play type Y, other players even ask and talk about what the characters motive was.

Armorlord wrote:Even the worst players and game masters that I've played with still had PCs with their own goals and motives*. It certainly isn't something you need your roleplaying system to cover....

Any roleplaying system allows for and by far most encourage "character building" (not rolling up, but giving the PC motivations etc). Even the AD&D 1st edition GMG had a whole section about motivations, character (in the sense of moral fiber or the absence of it), etc. all far beyond the often - unjustly - ridiculed alignment systems, which are actually just the same, only burned down to the abstract essentials of a moral and ethical compass. Palladium here does more and gives a 10 point (examples) list of alignment do's and don'ts, but the principle is still the same.

No matter how I try to disarm people reading me as insisting on a 'need' by describing it like food, it still gets read that I'm totally, totally saying you need to play this way.

The other side of the coin is that there is no need not to have character motivations be part of the game system, either. It's just a choice - play a system with or without. You don't want a system to cover it, cool. But equally there is no need for any system not to, as well (check out the riddle of steel RPG for a good example). Different systems, different ways.

In short, I do not think that you advocate something new.

On the contrary, by voiding the value of events (which you will have anyway, unless you want to play the "Satre's NO EXIT" -Game), and only that offers the external eventlessness you advocate), although even your boat example is not eventless as it is a genuine event, your example is merely without context, I think you take something very important from a RPG: life. Life is about context.

How much context do you need?

I'm kinda second guessing, but are you withholding judging the character of the PC's on the boat, because otherwise you might just judge the PC's as bad people for not leaping off the side into life rafts or even into the water and paddling across to save people? Your waiting for further context because otherwise you'd just find them lothesome PC's?

The exciting thing I find is that I just find them human.

Macbeth would never have had a chance for his dagger soliloquy if events had not given the impetus that his desires/wishes/greed fight with his sense of duty/fealty/loyalty/law - NOW, the king is under his roof, sleeping, in his reach, soon his wife will tell him that the guards are asleep ... and, MacBeth has decided to kill his king. BUT, he is torn between guilt and a burning ambition. Does he commit regicide? ... Great play, great "internal" event, as typical for theatre externalized by speech (and a couple of gestures, including exciting stuff as "wild eyes and hair"), but events pushed that and events will follow from his actions (or incations, only the play is so much more interesting because the king IS killed etc. etc.).

In your food analogy you do not offer a different dish at all but a milkshake without milk.

If you're getting that macbeth like moment several times a session (or atleast once), then cool, just say so - it's not like you need to refute this type Y thread if you are.

However, if it only happens about once a real life year, then I contend just trying to figure out what would happen next fails at creating macbeth like moments (except as a annual event). If you don't care about macbeth like moments, then that's fine but what I'm talking about focuses on them.

If you only have a macbeth moment once a year, perhaps what your having is all milk and almost no shake? Wait, that'll be read as some dread comment upon yourself, even though you get to describe what I'm saying as milkshake without milk (as, I presume, NOT a dread comment upon me). Try and read me as you would have me read your 'no milk' comment. If you were being nice in saying it, I'm being nice in saying as much as you were.

I keep rereading statements in this thread trying to decipher the point of it. I feel like I'm trying to figure out what someone that does not speak the same language as me is saying.

What is this 'Type Y'?
Is it player characters having their own goals and motivations? Because that sounds like the normal type to me.
Is it player character drama for the sake of drama? That would be a pointless endeavor, it should come naturally as their goals/motives interact with events.
Is it the player going on long-winded monologues about how his/her character feels internally? In light doses that can be fine at dramatic moments, but otherwise better talked about out-of-character before or after games unless someone is using empathy or telepathy to hear said thoughts. Gritting teeth, looking at things sadly, glaring, etc- actual things that people around the character can observe are better during the game than things that no one can actually be observing.
Is it something else entirely?

Does 'Type X' actually exist anywhere?

Armorlord wrote:I keep rereading statements in this thread trying to decipher the point of it. I feel like I'm trying to figure out what someone that does not speak the same language as me is saying.

What is this 'Type Y'?
Is it player characters having their own goals and motivations? Because that sounds like the normal type to me.
Is it player character drama for the sake of drama? That would be a pointless endeavor, it should come naturally as their goals/motives interact with events.
Is it the player going on long-winded monologues about how his/her character feels internally? In light doses that can be fine at dramatic moments, but otherwise better talked about out-of-character before or after games unless someone is using empathy or telepathy to hear said thoughts. Gritting teeth, looking at things sadly, glaring, etc- actual things that people around the character can observe are better during the game than things that no one can actually be observing.
Is it something else entirely?

Does 'Type X' actually exist anywhere?

Excellent point, Armorlord!

Personally, I have arrived at the conclusion that - and I think you and me share this opinion - that there is absolutely no need for a separation of styles X (action/event oriented) and Y (character playing / moral dilemma focus) because we see both "styles" as two (and I find: necessary) sides of the same (game) coin, whereas Noon seems to think or advocate that both are contradictory, i.e. diametrically opposed to each other. I could add that I further think that if you split Y from X - or, indeed, vice versa - each game might still be fun, but would be the less for it.

Noon wrote:... are you withholding judging the character of the PC's on the boat, because otherwise you might just judge the PC's as bad people for not leaping off the side into life rafts or even into the water and paddling across to save people? Your waiting for further context because otherwise you'd just find them lothesome PC's?

I do not find them loathsome, I do not judge them. It is the player's prerogative to act as they will it, albeit within the confines of the rules (a guy who cannot fly etc. will not be able to fly without a tool for that, same as you or me), of course. It is my task as GM to then act or react within the same confines.

Noon wrote:If you're getting that macbeth like moment several times a session (or atleast once), then cool, just say so - it's not like you need to refute this type Y thread if you are.

I do not refute the thread. You invited to discuss a "style Y" and contrasted with a "style X", I am doing that.

I do think, however, that

(i) I doubt that playing style Y would be fun or make for a long campaign,
(ii) a "style Y" adds nothing to the roleplaying experience as those who want to stress moral dilemmas and externalize (internal) character developments are not held back from doing that in any RPG system, on the contrary encouraged to give their PC motivations, a moral and ethical compass, a background, etc. etc. already, as well as
(iii) "style Y" will not work in a "pure form" (i.e. eventless) unless your setting is an unadorned room with the PCs imprisoned in it (you may be familiar with the Sartre play I cited), and
(iv) furthermore, "style Y" is - in my book - already included in the current gaming experience and to separate it from "style X" would reduce both gaming experiences.

I am not refuting a "style Y", I am just voicing my doubts as to its viability. But, truly, each gamer must decide that for himself. I do not argue to take that away from anyone.

TWO QUESTIONs:

1. Did you ever play "style Y"?
2. Was it eventless?

Cheers
Hendrik

I GM style Z were every player falls asleep at my game. ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

Are we missing some posts here? The first couple ones have me going

Armorlord wrote:I keep rereading statements in this thread trying to decipher the point of it. I feel like I'm trying to figure out what someone that does not speak the same language as me is saying.

Noon has a deep and complex philosophy of roleplaying that he places a very high priority on, but that seemingly only he can understand.
Everybody else I've seen pretty much has your reaction.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Armorlord wrote:I keep rereading statements in this thread trying to decipher the point of it. I feel like I'm trying to figure out what someone that does not speak the same language as me is saying.

Noon has a deep and complex philosophy of roleplaying that he places a very high priority on, but that seemingly only he can understand.
Everybody else I've seen pretty much has your reaction.

It's most likely a derivative discussion of narrative vs fantasy and expression.

Generally speaking, I've found that players who write a massive biography for their characters are generally looking towards the Pen and Paper game as an interactive method of creating their characters next chapter in the story. They aren't doing it necessarily because they want to express themselves, but rather the character they created. Meanwhile, those that quickly write up characters are generally more interested in personal expression. The character is in effect an extension of the player in a fantasy world created by the GM, and the player is just looking to have a good time.

In the west, the common thought process is that creating a character for an RPG is a form of personal expression. It's why people are so uptight about what gender of character a person is playing in the game (i.e. a guy playing as a GIRL?! What is wrong with you?). Likewise, the GM acts as a narrator and creator of content that the players can then explore.

Another way to look at it is that people with a narrative focus look towards their character as an NPC, while those who go towards the other way see them as a player character / avatar.

Hi there,

Colt47 wrote:It's most likely a derivative discussion of narrative vs fantasy and expression.

I don't know if Noon's idea was about that, but I guess you could say it is that. Noon seems to want to contrast "event / outside oriented" with "character developement / inside oriented" gaming styles. I think that is overemphasising a difference or, actually, artifically creating a gap between things that happen (events) and how the characters act/feel.

I have always thought discussions about for example narrative vs. rules, dice vs. diceless, action vs. character roleplaying etc. etc. are as a rule discussions that revolve around themselves - you know, like the "my fish is bigger/better" discussions - more than really bringing something useful to the table. The point being that any game needs to be enjoyable to all gamers at the table - whatever makes their boat float is "best". Personally, I think that you take something away from the roleplaying experience (at least, as I like it) when you spilt off action or events from roleplaying a character, I like all of that. A game that would (only) be about basically a free form theatre play session, if that is what Noon is going for, I guess, could be fun, but has little to do with how I would like to play or what I would see as a roleplaying GAME.

That said, I still do not see how Noon would make a game happen that is eventless ...

Hendrik wrote:Hi there,

Colt47 wrote:It's most likely a derivative discussion of narrative vs fantasy and expression.

I don't know if Noon's idea was about that, but I guess you could say it is that. Noon seems to want to contrast "event / outside oriented" with "character developement / inside oriented" gaming styles. I think that is overemphasising a difference or, actually, artifically creating a gap between things that happen (events) and how the characters act/feel.

I have always thought discussions about for example narrative vs. rules, dice vs. diceless, action vs. character roleplaying etc. etc. are as a rule discussions that revolve around themselves - you know, like the "my fish is bigger/better" discussions - more than really bringing something useful to the table. The point being that any game needs to be enjoyable to all gamers at the table - whatever makes their boat float is "best". Personally, I think that you take something away from the roleplaying experience (at least, as I like it) when you spilt off action or events from roleplaying a character, I like all of that. A game that would (only) be about basically a free form theatre play session, if that is what Noon is going for, I guess, could be fun, but has little to do with how I would like to play or what I would see as a roleplaying GAME.

That said, I still do not see how Noon would make a game happen that is eventless ...

Narrative vs Fantasy and Expression isn't exactly on the same level as narrative vs rules, though they do overlap in a few places. It's more like a comparison between a novel and a theme park. Both are entertaining, but the novel has a set direction, while the theme park you can pretty much go to whatever event you want to go to in any order. But yeah, in both games there are events that are created by the GM that players participate in. It's not possible to have a theme park without rides, and the same can be said about a Roleplaying game and events.

Just an anecdote.

I was running a game of AD&D once, and I remember starting a scene that I'd intended to reward a player with a hireling in an interesting manner. I basically set up a scene mimicking the scene in Conan The Destroyer in which Conan releases Zula from the chains and she joins him.

So, the character, a pretty reputed wildmage is returning home to a big trading town when he sees a crowd ahead. The crowd is enraged, and the guards are standing idly by while this chained orc is getting beat upon by villagers. Remember that in AD&D it was still almost unheard-of to see a half-orc party member, so almost immediately my players recognized this fellow the way the villagers did - as a monster caught inside the city limits. The player character asked what all the anger was about, and several townsfolk simply screamed blind replies like "He's an orc, what else we need to know?!" and "Down with the monster!" so, in ordered for our hero to correctly prove his valor and heroism, he directed the crowd to stand back as he fire-balled the poor chained orc straight to.. wherever fire-balled orcs go to when they're really, really dead.

Considering that the player's alignment directed him to protect and defend freedom above all else, I remember have a short 'huh???' sort of conversation with him before moving on with the game henchman-less.

I shouldn't have been surprised though, since I remember running a palladium game much earlier on in life with the same player - and I recall that he opted to blast flame spells inside a cave that he simply saw the glow of several eyes within, only to carelessly discover that he'd more or less butchered a family of sentient cave-dwelling beings (I forget the species). I vaguely remember that he was on an intelligence-gathering mission, which I had intended the occupants of the cave to assist with.

I think its all well and good to make choices that then have consequences, but I think there's a danger of some players simply getting into a "slay and loot" mentality that isn't conducive to making good or interesting story so much as it is.. Just not very smart.