Walking down a long road

[Zeigfreid]

Hi

I'm Ziggy. I love to write settings, and the way I do this is by making roads. Roads are linear and easy to write, so I can generally get a lot done in a day if I am writing some roads. They can be between towns, or in towns, or kind of vaguely defined in terms of some non-spacial linearness (roads in time, roads in a forest, roads in an arbitrary sequence of events). The problem is what I like to put on the roads!

A stand of sakura and a barking dog. A tall tree. A vineyard! Sometimes I like to have a crashed spaceship, or a temple, but more often I enjoy little things. Not all of these little things can be adventures, though, and when I spend so much time telling the players about the latest nest of sleeping butterflies... they get tired? You know, tired of having to hear about all the fascinating stuff between what they think of as points A and B in an adventure.

So I have always wanted to write a system in which characters gain their power from meaningless interaction with mundane things. They use this power to operate in terms of adventure and glory: but it adds meaning to travel, perhaps?

I dont' know! I have always wanted to... but I never have.

First post: I've never designed anything, and am timid about proposals like this. Maybe I will come back soon.

z.

[xiombarg]

I like the idea of being empowered by the mundane. In a lot of the best fiction, how a character reacts in simple, "color" situations is a foreshadowing of how he'll react later.

I'm not sure how you'd reflect that mechanically, but I think it's a good idea. Perhaps after a given scene, or a given suggestion, players vote to give each other traits based on how the character interacted? Like, if you were particularly nice to that three-legged dog, the other players can give you the "Kindly" trait, which might come in handy when trying to defeat a Big Bad at the end of the road.

[Callan S.]

Are you interested in them having a partial say in whats on the road too?

In fact, are you interested in writing something, like a bed of sleepy butterflies, but not know what will actually be on the road - you'll know it'll be kind of butterfly based, but then again you don't really what will be there until play happens? And the same with the other players - say they imagine about a giant eye by the side of the road. But they don't really know it'll be like that.

Then some mechanics happen that take these things in, and say there are butterflies, but the way they all hold their wings, they form the image of a great eye. AND neither you, nor the player ever knew that would come up before this moment!

Does that uncertainty sound...fun!?

[Zeigfreid]

Hi

The religion of shinto has always interested me. I sort of imagine a game in which the characters can interact with the spirit of a place, as well as the NPCs in a place. Maybe the stand of sakura trees has malicious designs against a neighboring river, or maybe that three-legged dog is a messenger. This is all well and good from a story perspective, but I haven't ever been able to make it into a system.

I like your idea of players voting on what abilities someone gains as they go through the game. As well, I like this idea of a half player-written world. The group I play with, however, has never been supportive of that kind of stuff. I have suggested, countless times, that the players could help me out by making faceless but statistically interesting characters for me - to save me time and let me work on the setting instead of the statting... but to little avail!

Something that I thought of last night was to give each mundane location a power, and let people gain these powers by visiting these places. The problem is that... in order to have NPCs who also have such powers, I would have to build a world so filled with interesting little locations that my brain a splode (pardon my French). In my imagined system, the characters would have six stats that corresponded to physical abilities and luck on the one hand, and to their ability to gather these powers from different kinds of locations (wood, metal, void, fire, air, water... we begin to see that I am one of these oriental adventures enthusiasts).

Hum dee dum!

z.

[Callan S.]

I can't say I suggested faceless yet statistically interesting characters be generated for you. In my suggestion, two ideas were blended together - it wasn't a case where one player offers another person an idea and that person uses how they want. In my suggestion, when the two blend, both people lose alot of control over the idea - that includes the GM here. Your idea of faceless, statistically interesting characters has you keeping a lot of power. Are you comfortable with giving up power? You might want to look at my idea again and see how that butterfly eye result shows how neither person had complete control.

[Zeigfreid]

Hi

You have an agenda!

I understand what you are talking about, and it's pretty cool. My players wouldn't be interested: they are quite happy with giving the DM control over the world and only having complete control of their own actions (cause that's what life is like).

It could be said that a good DM going for a realistic setting doesn't really control his world. Common sense, causality, realism, and the player's needs can often influence the game's direction far more than the DM (so actually, in a way, we are playing the way you suggest, except that instead of the players deciding on things like floating eyes, they are deciding on things like how deeply they explore).

Being a DM doesn't have to be about "having power" or "giving up power" or anything so tied to self. A DM has responsibility, most of all to the players. I don't know: I like your idea of the whole group working together to create a more interesting world (instead of just the DM doing this), but I think that you shouldn't feel the need to ask peple if they are "comfortable with giving up power": it's not like what you are suggesting is illicit or uncomfortable, or even particularly new. Hmm...

Aside: the thing with the statistically interesting characters idea is that it gives the DM a sort of spring-board. sometimes a player will come up with some cool wizard character with a thematically intereting set of spells, or an unusual warrior type (or a monster or spirit, or whatever) that lets the DM really flex her creative muscle.

z.

[vertigo25]

Hi Ziggy,

I'd like to pop in and recommend trying out one of the more "narrative by collaboration heavy" games that are available. Ideally a game that had no GM, like Universalis, or Shock:. Or if you and your players are not ready to give up the GM yet, maybe my current fave, Burning Wheel. Actually, without even buying and using BW, you should check out their forums and see how they recommend world building and character generation. A lot of what they push can be applied to almost any RPG. It's a give and take on both sides: The GM gives some setting details, the players give some character concepts, the whole group participates, recommends, tweaks, until you have synthesized a really satisfying world.

There is also the game Donjon. IMO, it's the perfect game to introduce people to some of these concepts. The rules are simple, but rich. The game is also available for free.

The reason I recommend this is that I think these games could help you develop your idea and would help your players break out of their mold. Don't approach them with that, of course. Just a, "Hey this game looks pretty cool, you guys wanna try a one-off?" would suffice.

[Zeigfreid]

Hi

Yeah! I think I'd be really enthusiastic to try such a game. You could even take it a step further, and have everyone work together to come up with a system that was super pleasing.

You know what: I'm going to find a small group of players and try this crazyness out RIGHT NOW.

However, that still leaves me with a fixation on the mundane and wanting to find a way to give players a reason to spend a bit more time with nature. Or something to that effect.

z.

[vertigo25]

Definitely give Donjon a read.

I could see how you could fuse your ideas with that system pretty easily.

[OleOneEye]

I am genuinely curious of how you want the players to interact with the mundane.  When coming across a tall oak, they climb it, pick a leaf and watch it fall, break off a few switches and play fight, then carve their initials into the bark before going on their merry way?  Would that be an example of your goal and could you post a couple examples of what you want?

[Callan S.]

I understand what you are talking about, and it's pretty cool. My players wouldn't be interested: they are quite happy with giving the DM control over the world and only having complete control of their own actions (cause that's what life is like).

Looking at your goal again

So I have always wanted to write a system in which characters gain their power from meaningless interaction with mundane things. They use this power to operate in terms of adventure and glory: but it adds meaning to travel, perhaps?

I think that meaning is important to you. And I think you've just told me in the paragraph above it, it isn't important to the players. They don't come to the game for it. It's possible it's in them to think its important, but right now they don't come to the game for that. What do you think?

Being a DM doesn't have to be about "having power" or "giving up power" or anything so tied to self. A DM has responsibility, most of all to the players. I don't know: I like your idea of the whole group working together to create a more interesting world (instead of just the DM doing this), but I think that you shouldn't feel the need to ask peple if they are "comfortable with giving up power": it's not like what you are suggesting is illicit or uncomfortable, or even particularly new. Hmm...

I'm not refering to you/the DM having power in a 'good' or 'bad' way, but in practical terms. Imagine your all in a boat, and the DM is at the rudder of the outboard motor. At a practical level, he just controls where they go. Whether that's good or bad, or whether I think that's good or bad doesn't matter, at a practical level that's what's happening. And in terms of your 'not tied to self' idea, if your at the rudder, no one else is. You might wish it wasn't a matter of something so tied to self, but at the practical level, only one person can control that rudder at a time. Even if that person really, really tries not to be selfish, he's damned by circumstance to control the rudder alone.  This is beyond trying to avoid being selfish - it needs mechanics. You need to change those circumstances. That's why I was suggesting new rudder control rules, so to speak.

[Narf the Mouse]

Hmm...Don't know if it's relevant, but in some fairy tales, roadside encounters turn up later in the story as either help or hindrance depending on how the character reacted. Which ties into giving the character something to do and building the characters' personality.

"Beside the road, you see a fox trapped in a cruel snare..."

If they let it loose, they get help down the road. If they leave it there, they gain some sort of trait - Say, 'Callous'. And then they can use that in combat.

[Zeigfreid]

Hi

When coming across a tall oak, they climb it, pick a leaf and watch it fall, break off a few switches and play fight, then carve their initials into the bark before going on their merry way?  Would that be an example of your goal and could you post a couple examples of what you want?"

Yeah! This is what I'm talking about. One time when I tried to run the game I had the characters play children. Their adventures usually involved going somewhere they had been told not to, finding cool things and interacting with them, and then talking to some stranger. Between adventures they would start to notice... differences?

One time they went to a broken bridge that their mom had said was too dangerous and should be torn down. They jumped across it, and played around it, and one of them found a little bronze bell in some rubble. Then next day they were able to win hop-scotch and leap frog really well, and the bell? Well who knows what that was about.

The system was very simple: each of them had a ten card deck, with some threes, a four, five, six, seven, eight, and maybe a ten? Some numbers, but not low ones. Then they had some stats (which they made up) some positive and some negative, and a skill or two; all given a number of dots (they drew their characters sheets themselves). Other than that, I basically used Nkn (the Rokugan dice pool) to resolve challenges. When a player got a little bronze bell, I gave him a blank card for his deck and told him to draw the bell and add it to his deck. When it came up (which it never did) I would have had him interpret it's meaning? And that would have set it's power in stone.

Anyway, that was fun. But I can't think of a way for this to work with adult characters. Also, it gets... maybe silly? After a while. The players maybe get tired of just climbing and dropping leaves and stuff. Maybe this has more to do with my skills as a storyteller than with a possible system. Hmm!

***

Where is Donjon? And how do I read it?

***

Imagine your all in a game, and the DM is DMing that game. At a practical level, he just controls what happens in the game. Whether that's good or bad, or whether I think that's good or bad doesn't matter, at a practical level that's what's happening. And in terms of your 'not tied to self' idea, if you're DMing, no one else is. You might wish it wasn't a matter of something so tied to self, but at the practical level, only one person can DM at a time. Even if that person really, really tries not to be selfish, he's damned by circumstance to DM alone.  This is beyond trying to avoid being selfish - it needs mechanics. You need to change those circumstances. That's why I was suggesting new DM control rules, so to speak..

I don't understand your rudder analogy? You said the DM is controling the game, and I said he wasn't really, and now you just said that he IS really (and that the game is like a boat). I still disagree? The players can do things both mechanically and as humans to control the game*. My players do; maybe your player's don't? Or: can you tell me why the game is so practically and completely in the hands of the DM (sans analogy please, because I don't understand analogies).

z.

*I thought I should give examples: players can control their character's movement through the game world, they can use their skills and abilities on the npcs in the game world in ways that the DM can't often predict or control. Out of the game they can rest their elbows on the table and yawn; they can tell when they are being railroaded or when you are improvising/changing the facts to compensate for unpredicted behaviour (and they know those things suck); complain to you between games or at "afters" down at Denny's; or inform you politely that they have plans with their mom this weekend, and then never come back to the game.

It's almost like: sure the DM controls the events in the game world, but the players have a similar level of control over events in the out of game world. We share the experience with them (so, I don't think it is necessary to spend a load of time writing mechanics to keep DMs in control: such mechanics already exist as biological systems in our brain).

PS Ha ha ha: writing this made me realize why I prefer the term Dungeon Master to Storyteller or Game Master. While the ST is telling the story, and the GM is master of the game, the DM only controls the dungeon (and not a single one of my games in years has included a dungeon), and leaves all that boring stuff that happens in towns up to the players.