Heroic Narratives, Or I Love Champions But...

[zslane]

18 hours ago, Spence said:

And a well designed system could allow the players and GM to add dramatic outcomes that would have been a writers domain if it were a book.

 

I'm not sure that the result would be a TTRPG as I define it. But I acknowledge that is a matter of personal preference, and that my definition of what constitutes a satisfying TTRPG experience may be different from yours or anyone else's.

 

18 hours ago, Spence said:

I am reading this to mean that by following the setting conventions you believe that players are sacrificing their agency. 

I don't comprehend this.

 

I don't want a pre-determined plot outline, or a set of genre conventions, to dictate the events that occcur, and in what order. I want player/character choices and dice rolls to do that. I am not moved by an adventure module (or GM outline) that says the villain must get away in Act I in order to properly set up the "dramatic climax" expected for Act III. The common term for this is railroading, but whatever you call it, it is symptomatic of a kind of forced plotting that also reduces player agency. This is fine for a writer whose job is to conceive of and adhere to a tightly constructed narrative where every story beat is carefully planned in advance and forced, as necessary, to produce a pre-determined emotional response in the reader. But that is utterly antithetical to my definition of a TTRPG.

[Ninja-Bear]

42 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 It is cooperative in the sense, we all want to have fun at the table.  But which side of the GM's screen a person is sitting determines  the final authority about control of the narrative, or in my case, situation. Players do not get a veto on GM dice rolls. 

Just as I suspected. As with Greywind’s last post. It’s a control issue. 

[Scott Ruggels]

5 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Just as I suspected. As with Greywind’s last post. It’s a control issue. 

 To a point.  As a GM I do not  tell the players where to go, or what to look at. I may be forced to quickly fill in NPCs and backdrops for places I had not foreseen the characters to go.  But the die rolls are the die rolls in front of the screen.

[Scott Ruggels]

30 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

I'm not sure that the result would be a TTRPG as I define it. But I acknowledge that is a matter of personal preference, and that my definition of what constitutes a satisfying TTRPG experience may be different from yours or anyone else's.

 

 

I don't want a pre-determined plot outline, or a set of genre conventions, to dictate the events that occcur, and in what order. I want player/character choices and dice rolls to do that. I am not moved by an adventure module (or GM outline) that says the villain must get away in Act I in order to properly set up the "dramatic climax" expected for Act III. The common term for this is railroading, but whatever you call it, it is symptomatic of a kind of forced plotting that also reduces player agency. This is fine for a writer whose job is to conceive of and adhere to a tightly constructed narrative where every story beat is carefully planned in advance and forced, as necessary, to produce a pre-determined emotional response in the reader. But that is utterly antithetical to my definition of a TTRPG.

THIS!!! THIS!!! SO MUCH THIS!!!! I am Out of Trophies, so THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

THIS!!! THIS!!! SO MUCH THIS!!!! I am Out of Trophies, so THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

 

Tried get him for you; discovered I am out, too!   

 

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

THIS!!! THIS!!! SO MUCH THIS!!!! I am Out of Trophies, so THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

 

1 minute ago, Duke Bushido said:

Tried get him for you; discovered I am out, too!   

Gotcha covered! 

[pawsplay]

6 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 

 The difference between HAP, and Fudging the rolls is that the HAPs are player controlled, and the Fudged die rolls  or poor but internally consistent decisions by the villains are secret from the players, and so the emotional tension is not diffused for the players, and the perception of the stakes is not changed.   The GM is basically stage managing things for the players to move through the situation presented, to provide a fun experience, and for me the fun is keeping the players players, and NOT having them make authorial decisions outside of their roles are active participants in trying to solve the situation I have presented to them.

I'll be honest, any time I see something like this posted, I retroactively enjoy less every game that person has ever run for me. I don't play to be lied to. I want the game to work, in some sense. To me this sounds way railroady, which can be a fun ride but is definitely not my cuppa. I like the idea the GM is constrained by some kind of rules structure. The GM already wields such authority and prerogative, I want there to be some kind of constraint. From limitations come creativity.

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 To a point.  As a GM I do not  tell the players where to go, or what to look at. I may be forced to quickly fill in NPCs and backdrops for places I had not foreseen the characters to go.  But the die rolls are the die rolls in front of the screen.

 

Very much so.

 

Player reads a bit about a museum display. Doesn't register to them, doesn't interest them. Villain reads the same piece an realizes it is the McGuffin he's spent the last 2 years trying to find. Hero goes on about his business. Villain goes about planning his business. Later on, the hero hears about something else related to the villain, and files it away. Further on, the hero runs into part of the villain's crew and stops them. The hero for some reason still doesn't decide to pursue the villain. That doesn't mean that the villain is going to stop doing his business simply because the player/hero didn't happen to want to ride that ride.

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Just as I suspected. As with Greywind’s last post. It’s a control issue. 

 

GM's control issue or the player's control issue having to exert agency above a player's chair?

[Duke Bushido]

I would like a quick head count of the number of people here arguing about roleplaying is and is not, and which of you agreed that we have no need to put the "what is roleplaying" section into roleplaying games.

 

 

Thank you, and good night, All.

 

 

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

1 hour ago, pawsplay said:

I'll be honest, any time I see something like this posted, I retroactively enjoy less every game that person has ever run for me. I don't play to be lied to. I want the game to work, in some sense. To me this sounds way railroady, which can be a fun ride but is definitely not my cuppa. I like the idea the GM is constrained by some kind of rules structure. The GM already wields such authority and prerogative, I want there to be some kind of constraint. From limitations come creativity.

I can, but not always do. Sometimes I let the TPK Or equivalent happen, some times I dont, but it depends on reading the room YMMV. But yes I agree that limits breed creativity. 

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I would like a quick head count of the number of people here arguing about roleplaying is and is not, and which of you agreed that we have no need to put the "what is roleplaying" section into roleplaying games.

 

 

Thank you, and good night, All.

 

 

 

 

 

I would put my hand up. 

 

I think that there is a useful purpose in showing folk what roleplaying is, I just don't think that it is a good use of rulebook pages.

 

I would also say that, given the vehemence of the discussion here, you better be VERY careful about your description because there are extremely divergent and strongly held views on the matter.

 

I still posit that more material, written and video, would be better.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, zslane said:

I'm not sure that the result would be a TTRPG as I define it. But I acknowledge that is a matter of personal preference, and that my definition of what constitutes a satisfying TTRPG experience may be different from yours or anyone else's.

 

This - the recognition that the issue is entirely about personal preference, not a "right and wrong way to play" - is key. 

 

17 hours ago, zslane said:

I don't want a pre-determined plot outline, or a set of genre conventions, to dictate the events that occcur, and in what order. I want player/character choices and dice rolls to do that. I am not moved by an adventure module (or GM outline) that says the villain must get away in Act I in order to properly set up the "dramatic climax" expected for Act III. The common term for this is railroading, but whatever you call it, it is symptomatic of a kind of forced plotting that also reduces player agency. This is fine for a writer whose job is to conceive of and adhere to a tightly constructed narrative where every story beat is carefully planned in advance and forced, as necessary, to produce a pre-determined emotional response in the reader. But that is utterly antithetical to my definition of a TTRPG.

 

To me, this also has to be limited.  To me, the player is obliged to bring a character suited to the game.  Some examples:

 

 - "My character's goal is to run a peaceful tea shoppe.  He is not interested in adventure of any kind."  It is not the job of the other players, or the GM, to entice your character from his secure tea shoppe into an adventuring life.  Your character can sit in his tea shoppe.  Maybe every few minutes we will even note that a new customer just ordered the chamomille blend.   But don't bitch about being bored while the other players play the adventure your character chose to sit out.

 

 - Ignoring the adventure hooks.  "No, I don't want to stick around and see what the mysterious stranger has to say.  My character goes upstairs to bed."  "Rather than deal with those ruins outside town, and the mysterious lights every night, let's book passage on a ship sailing to far-distant shores."  Go ahead.  But accept that this may mean the game consists of a boring travelogue while, in the meantime, the town you started in is destroyed, the Dark Lord builds his power, and one day the game just ends as the world is destroyed by the threat you decided was not worthy of your time.

 

It can be a tough balance.  I had a Patriotic Boy Scout character some years back, and some sessions in, the players were recruited for some black ops plot.  Not something my character would be a participant in, so he was prepared to step back.  That was not the game as presented, nor was it the game for which this character was designed.  The GM revised the premise a bit to get a "legitimate authority" angle to the recruitment.

 

11 hours ago, pawsplay said:

I'll be honest, any time I see something like this posted, I retroactively enjoy less every game that person has ever run for me. I don't play to be lied to. I want the game to work, in some sense. To me this sounds way railroady, which can be a fun ride but is definitely not my cuppa. I like the idea the GM is constrained by some kind of rules structure. The GM already wields such authority and prerogative, I want there to be some kind of constraint. From limitations come creativity.

 

This is a great example of how personal preferences vary.  "Was my victory earned by good play, skill and even lucky die rolls, or handed to me by a GM who fudged the outcome?"  Some players don't care, others do.

 

10 hours ago, Greywind said:

Player reads a bit about a museum display. Doesn't register to them, doesn't interest them. Villain reads the same piece an realizes it is the McGuffin he's spent the last 2 years trying to find. Hero goes on about his business. Villain goes about planning his business. Later on, the hero hears about something else related to the villain, and files it away. Further on, the hero runs into part of the villain's crew and stops them. The hero for some reason still doesn't decide to pursue the villain. That doesn't mean that the villain is going to stop doing his business simply because the player/hero didn't happen to want to ride that ride.

 

And one day we start the game with "your characters don't wake up that morning because the world was destroyed last night".  Maybe we should have investigated one of those three dozen plot threads...still, we had the highest-rated Tea Shoppe on seventeed online platforms before the world ended!

 

10 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

GM's control issue or the player's control issue having to exert agency above a player's chair?

 

Control issues can exist on both sides.  The player who insists on playing a character inappropriate to the game is one example.  In a game where the GM rules over all, there will be no Hero Point mechanics.  A game wanting a different division of agency and control may well use such a mechanic to divide that authority.

 

9 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I can, but not always do. Sometimes I let the TPK Or equivalent happen, some times I dont, but it depends on reading the room YMMV. But yes I agree that limits breed creativity. 

 

Taken to the extreme (the same extreme, I suggest, as "if we have Hero Points, the players can auto-succeed at anything and override the entire game"), this says "your characters live or die at the whims of the GM - maybe he spares you a TPK you earned, or maybe your hard-won victory turns into a TPK".

 

At one extreme, we have a story written by one or more players.  At the other, we have a story written by the GM, in which each PC is expected to play their scripted part (but you can ad lib in non-crucial elements of your role).  Between those polar opposites rests a lot of possible divisions of authority and agency.

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I would put my hand up. 

 

I think that there is a useful purpose in showing folk what roleplaying is, I just don't think that it is a good use of rulebook pages.

 

I would also say that, given the vehemence of the discussion here, you better be VERY careful about your description because there are extremely divergent and strongly held views on the matter.

 

I would say those strong views are an excellent reason for a "what is this game about?" discussion.  Is it a game where the dice rule over all?  Is it one featuring mechanics which permit players, the GM or both to override the dice on occasion?  Or is the GM expected to rule with an iron fist, fudge if considered appropriate or let the dice fall where they may, at his personal whim?

 

That's just as important as "grim, gritty and realistic" vs "cinematic reality" vs "high fantasy".  What is this game all about?

 

[Actually, maybe a quick paragraph on "what is this discussion thread all about" would also not be a bad idea ]

[Doc Democracy]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I would say those strong views are an excellent reason for a "what is this game about?" discussion.  Is it a game where the dice rule over all?  Is it one featuring mechanics which permit players, the GM or both to override the dice on occasion?  Or is the GM expected to rule with an iron fist, fudge if considered appropriate or let the dice fall where they may, at his personal whim?

 

This brings together this thread and the "what makes a complete game" thread.  Could you answer those questions for HERO as a whole? It would be MUCH more appropriate in the complete game books you were talking about because so many decisions about the game style would already have been made.  🙂

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

3 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

This brings together this thread and the "what makes a complete game" thread.  Could you answer those questions for HERO as a whole? It would be MUCH more appropriate in the complete game books you were talking about because so many decisions about the game style would already have been made.  🙂

 

The closest we get in Hero as a whole is "cinematic reality".  Hero is not a game, but a toolkit to design a game.  As such, it has many choices of options which can create games with specific parameters and objectives.  In that regard, some options can be tagged to specific game objectives. 

[Greywind]

42 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Control issues can exist on both sides.  The player who insists on playing a character inappropriate to the game is one example.  In a game where the GM rules over all, there will be no Hero Point mechanics.  A game wanting a different division of agency and control may well use such a mechanic to divide that authority.

Quote

Players can't play characters inappropriate to the game if the GM (remember him and his job?) vets and vetoes the character.

Games existed just fine before there were hero point mechanics of any stripe. The players' agency begins at their character, their legitimate die rolls, and ends with their ability to roleplay the results, both good and bad, only affecting the world within the character's ability to do so.

 

Taken to the extreme (the same extreme, I suggest, as "if we have Hero Points, the players can auto-succeed at anything and override the entire game"), this says "your characters live or die at the whims of the GM - maybe he spares you a TPK you earned, or maybe your hard-won victory turns into a TPK".

Quote

 

At one extreme, we have a story written by one or more players.  At the other, we have a story written by the GM, in which each PC is expected to play their scripted part (but you can ad lib in non-crucial elements of your role).  Between those polar opposites rests a lot of possible divisions of authority and agency.

 

The GM lays the plot, sets the scenes. He is not the "first among equals" at the table. It is his game/world.

The characters parts are completely ad-libbed. Tell me you've never been in a game where the players went so far afield that they weren't even remotely close to whatever rails the GM may have laid.

 

Now, as an experiment, get 9 friends around a table and give each a pad of paper. Each person writes one sentence and passes the pad to the right. They read what is written and write another sentence. And so on and so on, until the exercise is complete. When you're done see how many of those "stories" make any kind of coherent sense from start to finish.

[zslane]

Well, if it isn't obvious from what I've said about RPGs over the years here, I'm a sandbox player not a storytelling player.

 

I want the GM to present a setting/world with a premise and a crisis to be met, and then I want the GM to let the players do what they will with that. If the players aren't interested in that crisis, then the GM will have to adapt. The players don't have to "go along with the plot" and should never read too much into any given situation (e.g., they should never assume that every encounter is winnable just because it is--or appears to be--put in their path on purpose). Consequences flow from every choice, whether anticipated or not, and the world reacts accordingly. The "story", such as it is, is what happens rather than what is "supposed to happen", even if that results in a TPK, or the unexpected early demise of the Big Bad Villain in the first encounter.

 

To me, that is the heart and soul of TTRPG play. A "heroic narrative" may be the hoped-for goal, but it won't necessarily be the outcome. That depends on smart player decisions, a good GM and, usually, reasonably decent dice rolls along the way. It should never depend on a lot of DM fudging to "keep the story on track" towards a "satisfying dramatic conclusion."

 

And as for dice rolls, there's an old saying that good luck is merely where opportunity meets preparation.  The unpredictable nature of randomizers like dice can be mitigated by good planning, good tactics, strong team cohesion, and smart decision making. If you aren't looking for ways to earn modifiers to your rolls to nudge the odds in your favor, you aren't gaming, you're just acting. Dice, and dice mechanics, are not the enemy of role playing, they are the means by which the unmanageable forces of chaos are accounted for in a consistent and impartial manner. And that impartiality is extremely important. Impartiality is a key element of sandbox play; the GM isn't some benign god looking favorably on Our Heroes. He is, first and foremost, the impartial adjudicator of the fictive game world's internal reality.

 

If the above does not describe what TTRPGs are to you, then that's perfectly fine. It just means we will never find ourselves around the same gaming table.

[Greywind]

You're the reason adventure modules don't sell 😛

[Scott Ruggels]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

At one extreme, we have a story written by one or more players.  At the other, we have a story written by the GM, in which each PC is expected to play their scripted part (but you can ad lib in non-crucial elements of your role).  Between those polar opposites rests a lot of possible divisions of authority and agency.

 

Except, like Zslane, I run the game as a Sandbox, rather than a linear progression, usually I do play a "Dice Don't Lie" style, but I do on occasion, fudge.  "Retconning a mistake, after the fact has cratered my campaigns in the past so I am loathe to do that and am more sensitive to the room than I was.

[Scott Ruggels]

36 minutes ago, Greywind said:

You're the reason adventure modules don't sell 😛

 This is quite possibly true. ooking at my own Bookshelf, The only adventurews I have, I recieved as Comp Copies of projects I had illustrations in. The rest are various editions of the core rules, Genre books and things like Spell Grimoires and Equipment and monster books. I had my own homebrew campaign worlds and such, and still prefer homebrew backgrounds so The Old Folks here are probably not going to be buying adventures.

 

This is not to say not to produce adventure books.  The younger players, especially coming from the WOTC or Paizo games grew up on produced adventures, of various and that is probably what needs to be made, for the younger generations.

[Greywind]

Honestly, depending on the person and the group they game with, adventure modules tend to have a one-use lifespan. Characters and information within might stick around, but the adventure itself is one-and-done.

[PeterLind]

Sure, modules don't sell, but in the long-run, they might help you to sell your core rules.  Some folks will not buy into a game until they know that it is being supported, and actually played.  So modules can have their use. . . 

[zslane]

I like the Plot Point Campaign concept from Savage Worlds. I feel that when written well, Plot Point Campaigns strike a good balance between pre-plotted adventure material and the unlimited expanse of open-ended sandbox play.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

On 2/18/2020 at 5:03 PM, zslane said:

 

I'm not sure that the result would be a TTRPG as I define it. But I acknowledge that is a matter of personal preference, and that my definition of what constitutes a satisfying TTRPG experience may be different from yours or anyone else's.

 

 

I don't want a pre-determined plot outline, or a set of genre conventions, to dictate the events that occcur, and in what order. I want player/character choices and dice rolls to do that. I am not moved by an adventure module (or GM outline) that says the villain must get away in Act I in order to properly set up the "dramatic climax" expected for Act III. The common term for this is railroading, but whatever you call it, it is symptomatic of a kind of forced plotting that also reduces player agency. This is fine for a writer whose job is to conceive of and adhere to a tightly constructed narrative where every story beat is carefully planned in advance and forced, as necessary, to produce a pre-determined emotional response in the reader. But that is utterly antithetical to my definition of a TTRPG.

In that case why is there even a Gam in the Hero sense? If you want a game to be just based on dice rolls then all you need at most is a referee to roll for villain and NPCs. Besides why even talk? Have the players make there conversation, persuasion or other social skills. In fact you shouldn’t make any decisions based by GM but make a matrix to determine what the villain does.