It feels too me that most DMs run scenes like a film editor when the party is split; moving things forward with multiple actions to a point of tension or resolution with one group, then switching to the other to do the same for them, and so on.
It doesn't feel like too much of a stretch to do the same around sections of a battlefield, or sequences of action events.
Also, this has made the decisions they've made with 'Dagger Hearts' initiative free system make much more sense to me! Thanks.
Regarding the comparison to movies, a movie is a different medium, the director already knows the scenario and thus, would be able to decide how much actions a character would take on screen based on the story/pacing, maybe completely ignoring a less important character for a long time. In TTRPG, however, it would be better that each player have the same amount of time to roleplay their character (or close to).
Collaborative, not just Collective, storytelling does allow for players to have equal time. It is the role of the GM to monitor roughly how much time a player is getting and being proactive in ensuring that adequate space is available for everyone that is participating at the table. Giving individual characters more active time to construct and create their character’s actions does create a far more effective and engaging story. The narrative flow is far more natural than the staccato stop motion that occurs in a turn by turn game. Add to this that if a game has been designed where a player, who is not the current active character is given an opportunity to add to building the scene or environment they are participating far more frequently than ‘that’ player who tells other players what is the most efficient use of the current player character’s action economy.
At the very least it’s worth trying a game that operates this way or modifying a game to try it. Until one does so theory will only get one so far. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.
However they are all modes of storytelling. I would hazard a guess that you may be unfamiliar with Chainmail. That was a very ‘odd’ way to war game once upon a time. There’s a reason that once they hit high enough levels player characters received retainer groups and somewhere to base them. War gaming wasn’t going to be removed from the table top quietly. The hard liners had to have a ‘normal’ game they were familiar with.
Our shared heritage of storytelling still fulfils the same function it always has. Educational,entertainment and community affinity. The medium is constantly evolving. Not everyone needs to change with it. Oral storytelling is still used and in Western culture has seen a resurgence in some places. In other, older cultures it never went away.
I'm not sure what your point is? I'm not saying that a mechanic like this would be odd for an RPG. I'm saying that trying to make a RPG into a movie is an odd choice.
They are different mediums with different strengths. The most important point to note about movies, as was previously mentioned, is that the action has already happened. The story has already been written. This is the opposite to a RPG where the action is happening in real time. The DM doesn't know who to [make the camera] spend more time on because you don't know which actions are the ones that will be the most important. Or at least you shouldn't.
Trying to make a RPG like a movie is like trying to make a RPG like a novel or a computer game. Don't. If you want that - make a movie, write a book, create a computer game.
Not sure why you are talking about shared heritages of storytelling? Seems to have little relevance here.
Nobody mentioned turn by turn, the comment said that different medium offers different possibilities also why referencing chainmail ? how is it related ? will you reference all the boardgames and TTRPG until now ? please focus on the topic.
Monte, Monte, Monte…Why do I get the feeling that either some of your designer notes from Devil’s Dandy Dogs, or notes from this article were used in the design of Devil’s Dandy Dogs? /smile
I have two groups that are currently learning, and enjoying, DDD. Using the, at least basic, genre knowledge that is inescapable in our media saturated culture and simply stamping a mood on top of a genre to tell sometimes fun and sometimes dramatic and sometimes sad collaborative stories. The single narrative action, that can comprise of one or two players involved in Call and Response, that uses a limited number of successful actual component acts works beautifully. The group Call and Response, where a lot more dice are used to determine narrative results, selected by the active player in any order that makes the most interesting story where players take turns, similar to your example above is exquisite and simple in its design. Simple that is, once the playing group has dialled in, and accepted, the unnatural degree of player agency that is involved in narrative construction and development that exists in this game.
Unlike every other game I run, where I would ordinarily ask a player to consider a character outside their comfort zone to learn and develop as a storytelling group, in DDD I suggested the opposite. Pick a Role you are very comfortable with and a Storytelling style that the player is comfortable using. The reason being there is so much in this game that is so different from even other Free-forms, that something familiar for a solid foundation, I feel is helpful in allowing players the space to understand the turn sequences as well as the degree of player driven gameplay.
As a Diviner I feel that taking the role as an Active Listener, entering “character” as Old Scratch, to simply ask, “And then what did Ol’ Stumpy do while Orphelia was running around with the phone in her jaws?” or “What happened next?” is actually helpful in‘training’ me to be a better GM in other games I run. For players, using Roles to lean into and having a specific Storytelling style, is really advantageous in teaching them to be more creative and critical thinking players in other games as well. It is helping them learn to give and take at a table where a game that uses a regular turn system simply restricts.
Two comments that are off topic to this post but do relate to Devil’s Dandy Dogs. One, will we ever see sets of four DDD dice available in the MCG store? Secondly, CU Discord #devils dandy dogs has a few questions and things people are looking for like a Let’s Play video and some, “What do you do?”
As always, love Design Theories, read it actively when I get the chance and it always creates debate and discussion among our various RPG community. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience.
It feels too me that most DMs run scenes like a film editor when the party is split; moving things forward with multiple actions to a point of tension or resolution with one group, then switching to the other to do the same for them, and so on.
It doesn't feel like too much of a stretch to do the same around sections of a battlefield, or sequences of action events.
Also, this has made the decisions they've made with 'Dagger Hearts' initiative free system make much more sense to me! Thanks.
I always and continue to enjoy your written thoughts.
Longtime follower and reasonable fan.
Regarding the comparison to movies, a movie is a different medium, the director already knows the scenario and thus, would be able to decide how much actions a character would take on screen based on the story/pacing, maybe completely ignoring a less important character for a long time. In TTRPG, however, it would be better that each player have the same amount of time to roleplay their character (or close to).
Collaborative, not just Collective, storytelling does allow for players to have equal time. It is the role of the GM to monitor roughly how much time a player is getting and being proactive in ensuring that adequate space is available for everyone that is participating at the table. Giving individual characters more active time to construct and create their character’s actions does create a far more effective and engaging story. The narrative flow is far more natural than the staccato stop motion that occurs in a turn by turn game. Add to this that if a game has been designed where a player, who is not the current active character is given an opportunity to add to building the scene or environment they are participating far more frequently than ‘that’ player who tells other players what is the most efficient use of the current player character’s action economy.
At the very least it’s worth trying a game that operates this way or modifying a game to try it. Until one does so theory will only get one so far. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.
Yep. 100%. Novels, computer games, movies - there are all different mediums to RPGs. Trying to make RPGs like them is... odd.
However they are all modes of storytelling. I would hazard a guess that you may be unfamiliar with Chainmail. That was a very ‘odd’ way to war game once upon a time. There’s a reason that once they hit high enough levels player characters received retainer groups and somewhere to base them. War gaming wasn’t going to be removed from the table top quietly. The hard liners had to have a ‘normal’ game they were familiar with.
Our shared heritage of storytelling still fulfils the same function it always has. Educational,entertainment and community affinity. The medium is constantly evolving. Not everyone needs to change with it. Oral storytelling is still used and in Western culture has seen a resurgence in some places. In other, older cultures it never went away.
I'm not sure what your point is? I'm not saying that a mechanic like this would be odd for an RPG. I'm saying that trying to make a RPG into a movie is an odd choice.
They are different mediums with different strengths. The most important point to note about movies, as was previously mentioned, is that the action has already happened. The story has already been written. This is the opposite to a RPG where the action is happening in real time. The DM doesn't know who to [make the camera] spend more time on because you don't know which actions are the ones that will be the most important. Or at least you shouldn't.
Trying to make a RPG like a movie is like trying to make a RPG like a novel or a computer game. Don't. If you want that - make a movie, write a book, create a computer game.
Not sure why you are talking about shared heritages of storytelling? Seems to have little relevance here.
Nobody mentioned turn by turn, the comment said that different medium offers different possibilities also why referencing chainmail ? how is it related ? will you reference all the boardgames and TTRPG until now ? please focus on the topic.
Monte, Monte, Monte…Why do I get the feeling that either some of your designer notes from Devil’s Dandy Dogs, or notes from this article were used in the design of Devil’s Dandy Dogs? /smile
I have two groups that are currently learning, and enjoying, DDD. Using the, at least basic, genre knowledge that is inescapable in our media saturated culture and simply stamping a mood on top of a genre to tell sometimes fun and sometimes dramatic and sometimes sad collaborative stories. The single narrative action, that can comprise of one or two players involved in Call and Response, that uses a limited number of successful actual component acts works beautifully. The group Call and Response, where a lot more dice are used to determine narrative results, selected by the active player in any order that makes the most interesting story where players take turns, similar to your example above is exquisite and simple in its design. Simple that is, once the playing group has dialled in, and accepted, the unnatural degree of player agency that is involved in narrative construction and development that exists in this game.
Unlike every other game I run, where I would ordinarily ask a player to consider a character outside their comfort zone to learn and develop as a storytelling group, in DDD I suggested the opposite. Pick a Role you are very comfortable with and a Storytelling style that the player is comfortable using. The reason being there is so much in this game that is so different from even other Free-forms, that something familiar for a solid foundation, I feel is helpful in allowing players the space to understand the turn sequences as well as the degree of player driven gameplay.
As a Diviner I feel that taking the role as an Active Listener, entering “character” as Old Scratch, to simply ask, “And then what did Ol’ Stumpy do while Orphelia was running around with the phone in her jaws?” or “What happened next?” is actually helpful in‘training’ me to be a better GM in other games I run. For players, using Roles to lean into and having a specific Storytelling style, is really advantageous in teaching them to be more creative and critical thinking players in other games as well. It is helping them learn to give and take at a table where a game that uses a regular turn system simply restricts.
Two comments that are off topic to this post but do relate to Devil’s Dandy Dogs. One, will we ever see sets of four DDD dice available in the MCG store? Secondly, CU Discord #devils dandy dogs has a few questions and things people are looking for like a Let’s Play video and some, “What do you do?”
As always, love Design Theories, read it actively when I get the chance and it always creates debate and discussion among our various RPG community. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience.
Kind regards,
Adz