|
Post by friartook on Aug 28, 2015 16:19:21 GMT
So, I didn't know where else to post this, but it is an exceedingly geeky concept, so this forum seems right.
I've been listening to the OneShot Podcast's Campaign series lately. Its a bunch of improv comedians and game nerds doing a Star Wars: Edge of Empire campaign. It is one of the most collaborative actual plays I've ever heard. By collaborative, I am referring to GM/Player collaboration. In real time, these guys collaborate to create what is happening in the game world. The GM plays a character (NPC) as well as all the other NPCs, but the players have as much input on what is actually going on in the game world as the GM does (including NPC actions and reactions!). They are constantly making things up, both positive and negative consequences and circumstances for their characters. For those unfamiliar, OneShot is a podcast where some of these same people select a system, and run a one-shot campaign in it for 2-4 sessions. Campaign is an off-shoot of OneShot in which they decided to make into the separate Campaign podcast out of a one-shot series.
Now, when I listen to this, three things constantly run through my mind: The system encourages this sort of collaboration through the use of "Force Points" and special dice; these guys are improv comedians, so they are used to feeding off one another with the "yes,and..." philosophy; lastly, how can I get my players to do more of this?!
At first, I assumed 90% of this was the players and the GM's style. I assumed that because they were comedians and improvisers they were used to working out scenarios in this way. The system is just providing a convenient framework right?
However, its more complicated than that.
I recently got caught up on Campaign, so to get my fix, I'm going back and listening to the OneShot episodes that started it all. With Star Wars, they did an interesting experiment on OneShot: They ran three sessions in the Star Wars 3.5 d20 system developed by WotC, then ran 3 more session using the Star Wars: Edge of Empire system. Same characters, same players, same personalities. Should all look pretty similar right?
What I've noticed right off the bat, is how much less collaboration there is in the 3.5 system! The GM spends a lot more time describing the scenarios and their consequences. He describes more of the enemies actions and reactions. In general, the game revolves around the GM much more in the d20 system than in the Edge of Empire system!
This has led me to some interesting questions: How much does system effect what style of game happens at the table? Can D&D (particularly 5e, as that's what I play) be more collaborative and less DM focused? Should it be? If yes, how can we encourage more collaboration from players? If one wants to game in this collaborative style, should one switch systems, or adapt their current system? Can we encourage optimizers to collaborate fairly, and not "game the collaborative system"? Can one simultaneously be an optimizer, and collaboratively game? Can we, as DM/GMs, let go of our tight grip on our story and allow the players to help make the story? Should we?
I'm interested in your thoughts on these matters.
PS: If you are a fan of Actual Play podcasts, and you don't know the 'casts referenced here, you should really check Campaign out. It is one of the most entertaining APs I've heard! OneShot is currently running a Numenera one shot series, which I am greatly enjoying as well.
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Aug 28, 2015 23:13:04 GMT
First off, umbralwalker NEEDS in on this goodness. He and I have had several conversations about the pure awesome that is OneShot: Campaign. I agree that if you even sort of like actual plays then OneShot: Campaign needs to be in your podcast queue! I will start by saying that Campaign is a perfect mix of just about everything that makes for great roleplaying. How much does system effect what style of game happens at the table? I think that it is a big factor at paving the way for those that don't already have an affinity to role play. If it's baked into the rules it is easier to have people learn and know how to go about it. Can D&D (particularly 5e, as that's what I play) be more collaborative and less DM focused? Yes, but playing back into the last question it will need to be more of a concerted effort to have the players jump into the role playing if they don't already know how, or are not comfortable with it. Should it be? If yes, how can we encourage more collaboration from players? I think it should be, but of course the old adage of "know your players" goes here as the cliche. There are several ways that I see it being done. One is to have a great role player at your table who is the high tide raising all ships, which for Campaign I feel is JPC. You could have a great DM who helps to lead the charge and actively engage the players, and put the task to them in a way that doesn't feel like a chore, that Kat Khul. You could of course have a ridiculous mix of both and have a great role playing DM who happens to be a player at your table, and that is of course James. Don't get me wrong Jhonny is great as well, and the Leenik moments are often my favorite! The four of them fit into a great piece of the puzzle that is elevating collaborative play, and throw in the edge of the Empire system that promotes it so well, and success! The other idea if it is a system that doesn't do it as well, is to add in pieces of those systems that do it well. Like the character creation ties that are in Fiasco, or the Jenga mechanic from Dread for a really intense battle. All that to also say you could have a group that is using the Edge of the Empire system and never once have a true collaborative experience. If one wants to game in this collaborative style, should one switch systems, or adapt their current system? Oops, got carried away with last answer and touched on most of this. I think incorporating pieces of other systems into the one you are currently using is probably best. Unless there isn't much invested into the current system, or it already has too bad of a wrap to come back from. Can we encourage optimizers to collaborate fairly, and not "game the collaborative system"? Can one simultaneously be an optimizer, and collaboratively game? The second question first, yes. Me I optimize as much as humanly possible as I build a character, but do it from more of a research perspective than a need to be better than others. Granted, I want to make the absolute most powerful character I can within the frame of the ideas I had for that character. From there though I try to actively engage the players during times when there are not dice being rolled. From the other side of the screen though I could see this being more difficult, and the first thing that comes to mind would be giving quantifiable bonuses for being collaborative. I know that could be done with 5E through Inspiration, but I'm sure other methods could be used. Can we, as DM/GMs, let go of our tight grip on our story and allow the players to help make the story? Should we? Should we, yes! Can some, no. It's as simple as that, but of course gets more complex when you try and find the exact lines that could guide us in this. I think there is a certain point at which every DM/GM has to draw it as they are the ones that know the greater story, and need to be at least somewhat guarded about how that story should unfold. Too guarded though, and you are just telling a story that the players happen to be in rather than collaboratively writing that story together. I think specifically having places you know will be done collaboratively are a great medium for both sides of the idea. Well, there is all that, and I don't know what else to even say or think other than this is an awesome topic and I hope to see more conversation about it!
|
|
|
Post by lasersniper on Aug 28, 2015 23:21:09 GMT
First off, I would recommend you check out the Never Tell Me The Odds podcast. Pretty much the same type of group you described professional comedians and entertainers who build a goofy funny galaxy in EotE. You can find them on iTunes as well as the link I provided. Next up, I think the reason you find it less GM-centric in EotE is because that is how the game is designed. It gives the creative tools to the players so they can actually change reality, create new rules, and tell stories on their own. The D&D systems are much more like a video game. The GM is the game where players get to interact, explore, and build their story IN the confines of the world. Systems like Fantasy Flights Star Wars RPG's are narrative base, meaning that yes the GM sets up the world, but the players are able to change the world and alter its confines on the fly. While you can limit players in EotE and give them the freedom to change the base world in the WotC version, they both encourage different types of play and GMing. With entertainers and comedians, I believe the free range EotE encourages much more prominent.
|
|
|
Post by umbralwalker on Aug 29, 2015 5:42:03 GMT
Thanks for tagging me in, and I agree with Joatmoniac. The system definitely helps with collaboration, as does the party you're with, but there are things we can do to increase the opportunities in our games. I talked about this a bit in "Learning to be Kuhl". In short, I love that pod and Kat's my hero. I got to run a game for her and James at GenCon this year and it was awesome. tribality.com/2015/07/06/what-you-can-learn-from-kat-kuhl-gming-campaign/
|
|
Samuel Wise
Demigod
Ready to Help...
Posts: 989
Favorite D&D Class: Warlock
Favorite D&D Race: Mousefolk
|
Post by Samuel Wise on Aug 30, 2015 15:09:49 GMT
I really like this post. I'll give a brief blurb of what I think (and only because I have played from the players side recently and am building knowledge that way). I approach D&D the same way I approach any story (book, oral storytelling, audio dramas). As the DM I control the setting, the side characters, the world (and, of course, the gods). As a player I am controlliing one of the protagonists (most likely, there are a few exceptions). So the DM does a lot more? Sort of. It does seem like DMs are doing the bulk of the story (and, certainly, the most labor intensive part), however the players are the most important people in the game and should contribute the most (oops... sorry Chris & Mitch). How many movies/books are there where the setting and the world are nothing special, but it does well because it has great characters? Characters are probably the most important part to any story. Perhaps, (and this is going in a complete tangent, that might have no basis in reality) players get this from video games. We are used to focusing only on the story (or the gameplay), while the characters we control (in video games) are either mindless puppets (Skyrim) or deeper characters that we have no control over, except where they walk (FF, JRPGs...).
Should D&D be more collabrative? Yes, but players should already be deeply involved. The DM focuses on the story and the Player on the characters (both interconnect, of course). Both are important, however a good character can make up for poor story, but a strong story, can't make up for poor character. (Side Note: perhaps it is just how I am as a player. Every action my character makes I try to link to what is really in his mind: his emotions, his ideals, his entire way of living. I think it is the DMs job to give scenerios where the players CAN do this easily). Just some ideas...
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Aug 31, 2015 14:52:16 GMT
Some great thoughts here, thank you all.
So, my biggest fear in enabling some collaborative mechanics in my game are the optimizers/metagamers at my table. I hesitate to use the term "optimize" because they are only recently coming to terms with the rules, but the moniker applies. I've got one or two player in particular who I could see rampantly abusing collaborative mechanics. For example; I had a player do something the others were unhappy with. Pretty classic scenario: the rogue assassinates a useless NPC in the heat of combat just because he's annoyed with her. Many at the table were making jokes about killing this NPC, this player just did it. It fit with his character, it was hilarious, it caused drama and commentary even months later (I gave him Inspiration right then and there by the way).
Next session, the Paladin's player decided to be pretty pissed off about this (for the record, this player was one of the most vocal, "We should just off this NPC," advocates). He gave the rogue a lot of flack in game, which I was in full support of (high drama RP all the way!). However, he asked me at the top of the session if he could "Curse the rogue to be haunted by the spirit of the NPC he killed." I said no, on the grounds of his being LG and there not being any mechanics for "Cursed with Haunting".
Sscreeeeech! Stop! Full Stop!
As I'm writing this, I'm realizing that I missed out on a golden opportunity for collaborative RP!! What the Paladin wanted there was penalties and trouble for the rogue. What I should have done was allow this haunting to happen, but not allowed it to have any negative mechanical effects! All it takes is a change in mentality!
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Aug 31, 2015 14:57:42 GMT
First off, I would recommend you check out the Never Tell Me The Odds podcast. Pretty much the same type of group you described professional comedians and entertainers who build a goofy funny galaxy in EotE. You can find them on iTunes as well as the link I provided. Next up, I think the reason you find it less GM-centric in EotE is because that is how the game is designed. It gives the creative tools to the players so they can actually change reality, create new rules, and tell stories on their own. The D&D systems are much more like a video game. The GM is the game where players get to interact, explore, and build their story IN the confines of the world. Systems like Fantasy Flights Star Wars RPG's are narrative base, meaning that yes the GM sets up the world, but the players are able to change the world and alter its confines on the fly. I'll check out that podcast for sure! The "Video Game" design of D&D is something I've been chafing against for years without even knowing it. I recently said to my table, "I have no interest in being the "Computer" in a "Player vs. Computer" style game. That does nothing for me." That being said, some games I've read about take the mechanics of encouraging collaboration a bit too far. FATE is one example; I've never played it, but everything I've heard or read about it sounds a bit...flakey? Fluffy? I don't know. I have high hopes for The Cypher System. It seems to balance the openness of a story based game with the mechanics of a more "crunchy" system.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Aug 31, 2015 15:17:33 GMT
I approach D&D the same way I approach any story (book, oral storytelling, audio dramas). As the DM I control the setting, the side characters, the world (and, of course, the gods). As a player I am controlliing one of the protagonists (most likely, there are a few exceptions). So the DM does a lot more? Sort of. So, the question the becomes: can we let go of some of that DM control and allow our players to control things? What if the PCs enter a tavern and, instead of the DM busting out a map and explaining what the staff and clientele are like, the players describe the tavern and its denizens? What if, when a player rolls up a cleric, the DM asks, "Cool, what God do you follow? Is the pantheon polytheistic or monotheistic? If poly, what are a couple of other Gods like?" What if the players tell the DM what an NPC looks like, how they talk, where they're from? I feel like D&D very much encourages a "you're in my world, where I, the DM, am GOD!" Bow before me and obey my story! We write our campaigns and our worlds like novellas and expect our players to fit neatly into the necessary protagonist slots. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, but I'm feeling the need for something different lately. A different style of storytelling through gaming. I doubt there is any need to apologize to our esteemed hosts on this point. Mitch and Chris are constantly talking about engaging their players in world building. I think the tricky thing is allowing that to happen on the fly! Its one thing to sit down at a session 0 and do some worldbuilding together. Its quite another to allow players to affect potentially major changes to the DM's "canon lore" in a spontaneous manner. Also, on the subject of "labor intensive", I could sure stand to have a little of the creative burden taken off my shoulders as a DM. Don't get me wrong, I love the creative aspect of DMing, and I have a vast mental storehouse of ideas. But sometimes I just don't have it in me to make up something on the fly when it is called for. I do it anyway, but I often feel like it could have been better. I think there is some truth to this. Most of us who enjoy games have played some sort of RPG video game. For us old farts, TTRPGs came first, then the video games started coming out. I still "write" a background for every character I create in Skyrim, because that's how I approach an RPG of any kind. For those whose first exposure to RPGs was through video games, this flow is reversed, and can make RP difficult. So, I feel like this is exactly the sort of mentality I'm addressing here. In this framework, all the player can control, change, customize, or flavor up is their own character! Sure, that character's actions can change the world, but what about having the player's ideas change the world, even just a tiny corner of it. That's a horse of a different color there!
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Aug 31, 2015 15:26:33 GMT
I'm starting to realize why "story games" like FATE and EotE exist. Applying collaborative storytelling to a game like D&D, which has virtually no mechanics for it, seems to fall under the heading of "Advanced Game Mastering Techniques". In a game without rules for collaboration, the GM/DM is the only arbiter on what is "collaborative" and what is "metagaming".
I think it may help a lot to have a well thought out setting. EotE happens in a world that already "exists", so there is only so much the players can change. Major changes to the setting would have major effects on the game and would have to be discussed with the GM.
Thanks for the feedback everyone! If anyone else has an opinion, please chime in. Particularly if anyone has actually run a game that uses these mechanics and/or applied this style to D&D.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Aug 31, 2015 15:42:09 GMT
Thanks for tagging me in, and I agree with Joatmoniac. The system definitely helps with collaboration, as does the party you're with, but there are things we can do to increase the opportunities in our games. I talked about this a bit in "Learning to be Kuhl". In short, I love that pod and Kat's my hero. I got to run a game for her and James at GenCon this year and it was awesome. tribality.com/2015/07/06/what-you-can-learn-from-kat-kuhl-gming-campaign/Great article Rich! Best advice I took from it: "Err on the side of Awesome" (I already do some of that, but I need to do more), and "Give non-active players NPCs to play" (again, I've done a bit of this, but I will no longer be sending half my table away when the party gets split!). "I even heard a story about a DM that bought the 1st ed Monster Manual and tried to reverse-engineer the game from that!" I heard this too, from the "lips" (it was in interview) of the great Chris Perkins himself. It was his first RPG book ever. This story is the reason I bought my 10yo son the 5e Monster Manual for his birthday this summer. If you want to have your heartstrings plucked, check out the story here: A Very Special D&D Message.
|
|
|
Post by lasersniper on Sept 1, 2015 1:09:15 GMT
I think it may help a lot to have a well thought out setting. EotE happens in a world that already "exists", so there is only so much the players can change. Major changes to the setting would have major effects on the game and would have to be discussed with the GM. I actually currently run an EotE campaign. At first I did have the problem working in the Star Wars universe because I am such a big fan and was afraid to change anything. It paralyzed me for the first few sessions. Once I came to grips with the fact that running a game in Star Wars is much like running a game set in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron, it became much better. Star Wars is much more daunting, IMO, because it is such a big franchise. However we forget that the Star Wars universe is GIGANTIC. Not even the EU has explored all of it. I mean there is a region called the Unknown Region for goodness sake, and that takes up half of the Star Wars Galaxy. Nowadays I see existing Star Wars resources as a pool to drawn from, much like the Pathfinder SRD. Thankfully my players never had the problem I did when it came to changing things. Spacebook, Switter, and the collapse of the Podracing Circuit are new things in my Star Wars Universe thanks to them.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Sept 1, 2015 13:23:46 GMT
I meant to respond earlier to this. I read the initial post and immediately started listening to the One Shot campaign pod. So far I'm really enjoying it, but i paused to catch up on the new DMB. I guess over Sept I'll have more time to get some more One Shot in. I'll have opinions once I'm better informed
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Sept 4, 2015 17:39:39 GMT
I actually currently run an EotE campaign. We were short on players for Wednesday night's D&D session, so we did a trial run of the EotE Starter Set. It went amazing! I loved it, and so did my players. Within the first few die rolls, my guys were 100% in the RP. My most notorious metagamer became my best role player from his first roll of the narrative dice. I've got a couple questions for you regarding the system, hope you're willing to help a fellow GM out (even though its GM, not DM). 1. I started listening to Never Tell Me the Odds. Good AP 'cast, featuring at least one member of the Crit Juice crew (the GM too? I thought it was the same guy, but not sure). I noticed they use the GM Intrusion mechanic to award XP and effect the story line. Is this an actual mechanic in the EotE game system? I haven't gotten around to reading the full rule book yet. The only place I've heard the term is in the Cypher System (Numenera/The Strange). 2. Are the EotE, Age of Rebellion, and Force and Destiny core book materials relatively compatible with one another? I've got players who really want to be a force user (to be expected) and I figured the other game books would open new races and professions they could choose from. I'm comfortable fudging the canon timeline if that is an issue between books.
|
|
|
Post by lasersniper on Sept 4, 2015 19:48:10 GMT
Yes, Crit Juice and Never Tell Me The Odds have similar casts. At least 2 players and the GM is the same. 1. I assume you are talking about the Destiny system when referring to the GM Intrusion mechanic. In the rules they do suggest allowing your players to alter the story by spending destiny points. Like maybe there is a crucial bit of tech they needed they just happened to bring along, or they manage to get away from the stormtroopers because a fruit speeder overturned at just the right place. The Never Tell Me the Odds guys to run with it looser then I would in a game. As for the XP awarding, while not expressed specifically in the rules, awarding players for RP and inventive play is. And use of a Destiny point almost always initiates that in my experience. I also find Triumph doing a similar job when rolled. 2. EotE, AoR, and FaD all have VERY similar systems. The reason they are different books is because character progression is slightly different and the style of play is promoted in different ways. EotE's obligation and skill sets are made to encourage play in the criminal element. While AoR's Duty and skill sets are made to feel like you are a part of a military unit and promote a Rebellion campaign. Though I haven't played FaD yet, I can only assume that there are similar small alterations like that as well. The base rules are the same though, so using the character building systems for all the systems for a single campaign shouldn't be hard to do. Especially since the character building is very similar itself. Also if you are looking for more races and professions, there are a lot in the expansion books for EotE and AoR, especially races. They also have new equipment and ships. I got them for the pre-made ships
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Sept 4, 2015 19:57:32 GMT
Yes, Crit Juice and Never Tell Me The Odds have similar casts. At least 2 players and the GM is the same. 1. I assume you are talking about the Destiny system when referring to the GM Intrusion mechanic. In the rules they do suggest allowing your players to alter the story by spending destiny points. Like maybe there is a crucial bit of tech they needed they just happened to bring along, or they manage to get away from the stormtroopers because a fruit speeder overturned at just the right place. The Never Tell Me the Odds guys to run with it looser then I would in a game. As for the XP awarding, while not expressed specifically in the rules, awarding players for RP and inventive play is. And use of a Destiny point almost always initiates that in my experience. I also find Triumph doing a similar job when rolled. 2. EotE, AoR, and FaD all have VERY similar systems. The reason they are different books is because character progression is slightly different and the style of play is promoted in different ways. EotE's obligation and skill sets are made to encourage play in the criminal element. While AoR's Duty and skill sets are made to feel like you are a part of a military unit and promote a Rebellion campaign. Though I haven't played FaD yet, I can only assume that there are similar small alterations like that as well. The base rules are the same though, so using the character building systems for all the systems for a single campaign shouldn't be hard to do. Especially since the character building is very similar itself. Also if you are looking for more races and professions, there are a lot in the expansion books for EotE and AoR, especially races. They also have new equipment and ships. I got them for the pre-made ships Excellent, thank you! Sounds like I can leave an open door on that and "fudge" the progression awards as needed. As to item 1. I was not referring to the Destiny system. In the first few episodes of NTMTO, the GM specifically states that he is doing a "GM Intrusion", awards 4 XP to the affected player, and has that player grant 2 of those XP points to another player. This is a very specific mechanic that, as far as know, is unique to the Cypher System (in the Cypher System, the player would have had the option of spending 1 point of XP they already had accrued to bypass the GM Intrusion). I would have been very surprised to learn that it also was a mechanic in these Star Wars games, as Fantasy Flight Games and Monte Cook Games have no affiliation that I know of.
|
|