Almost 7 years ago, I blogged about this quote from Gary Gygax (image by Andrew McCormack)... a GM primarily rolls dice for the sound they make. It struck a chord in me back then, even way before that, as it still does today.
When you have a red-hot idea, regarding the narrative flow or what random table to roll upon from some long-forgotten zine stuck between the covers of a rarely consulted tome of ancient lore, you should never feel obligated to do what's written down, what's been planned out for you by a previous writer, or what procedural bureaucracy permits you to describe. You're the fucking Game Master. You decide. Ultimately, it's up to you.
Last night was the climactic (albeit, truncated) debate that Pundit and I have been having for years. Here is the Inappropriate Characters show where we start getting into it around the 40-minute mark.
I think I have this right, that RPG Pundit believes traditional RPGs are not story-games and have no business borrowing ideas (such as mechanics) or concepts (perspectives and paradigms) from the story-game design movement.
I'm of the opinion that, once you remove the poisonous Communism from what Forge-era story-games tried to inject into the hobby, there are valuable ideas and concepts that can be mined from story-gaming.
Pundit believes the focus should solely be on a "living world." Contrarily, I believe that both a living world and "living story" make for ideal gaming experiences.
Now, how do you define those terms? In my own words, a living world is a coherent, functional campaign setting that has rules and procedures, along with civilizations, cultures, societies, and all the things that would make up a real world that could be described to those who lived there.
A living story includes some kind of point to the thing, either an overarching or granular moment-to-moment reason for why things happen the way they do. Plot can be a loaded and divisive word, but Game Masters have to plan for their one-shots and campaigns. And that's what plot is, essentially, planning. Just as the world should feel alive, some kind of cohesive, functional narrative should also infuse it with purpose.
I've never been happy with appeals to "story by accident," where there's no narrative framework whatsoever, but sometimes a story can be cobbled together after the fact. If design (being a designer myself) has taught me anything, it's that you don't design things to hopefully work out by accident. Remember the 7 P's, hoss!
There's something we can all agree on, of course, no one likes a railroad. If everything in a session is tightly scripted without the chance of veering off into unexpected territory, you're not playing an RPG but imprisoned in the GM's novel - yuck!
As I've maintained for awhile, the tension between player-characters doing whatever they want, whenever they want, based on what seems reasonable at the time, with accurate descriptions and responses provided by the GM (sandbox approach), alongside adventures where some kind of narrative structure is accounted for, presents optimal friction, juice, heat, energy, power, or divine spark, if you will.
Wanting to know what the world is like seems just as valid as asking what that world is about. What's the meaning behind it? Quoting a movie I haven't seen in decades, Planes, Trains and Automobiles (starring Steve Martin and John Candy) "Here's a good idea: Have a point! It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!" Or, indeed, those roleplaying their characters.
In conclusion, there be gold up in them hills... if you're willing to give it a try. Your friendly neighborhood prospector, Venger Satanis, can show you the way. So, grab a tentacle and go!
Advanced Crimson Dragon Slayer is still a free PDF, as is Cha'alt X-Cards. But Gilded Die of Satanis is gonna cost you a few bucks.
Enjoy,
VS
p.s. Want to see gaming like that in action? There's no better way to learn the ins and outs than playing with us at VENGER CON III: Revenge of the OSR - now with preliminary gaming schedule (just scroll down). No extra costs or hidden fees. Buy your weekend badge today!
Everything happens on a continuum. Many people balk at being trapped in a series of GM-scripted scenes with no options or escape. Conversely, being dropped onto a tabula rasa and having everything die-rolled off of charts is usually meaningless and mind-numbing; for what would we need a GM for in that case? In actuality most gamers play somewhere in between the two extremes. The argument, IMO, is disingenuous. Perhaps a product of our online environment.
ReplyDeleteI believe this to be true. I think most good GMs and good campaigns are using both elements, even if the GM doesn't think of it as such. As soon as PCs zig when you thought they would zag, they're not hostages to the world. You can have a plan yet also adapt it to evolving circumstances. A "living, breathing world" loses believability if there are never unforeseen developments. Even with random tables, its up to the GM to make sense of it and blend an established setting with a procedurally generated world.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think most GMs have some element of collaborative storytelling, emergent or otherwise. If not, they're just reading fiction and asking for die rolls. My only complaint is that some new/newish games con people into thinking they invented it, or overcomplicate it. There's also a push to have funky mechanics for things people would normally just roleplay out. There's nothing wrong with that if it stimulates roleplaying, but it shouldn't replace it. If it all becomes too boardgamey, that kills the immersion factor for me.
ReplyDeleteWell said, hoss. Save the funky mechanics for stuff that NEVER gets roleplayed, like changing an anti-grav tire.
DeleteDefinitely. 😁
Delete