Storyteller Heartbreakers

[Paganini]

Bruce,

We're starting to drift off topic, but into some really interesting issues that would be cool to explore. I'd be happy to go over just why I feel that Vampire fails to meet its stated design goals in another thread, if you're interested in my opinions at all. (No reason you should be, but there it is. :) Plus, the idea of GNS cohesion that I mention below could certainly be explored more fully in its own thread as well.

Anyway, on the topic at hand, I don't mean to imply that people can't have fun with Vampire as written. I do think that Vampire misrepresents itself such that many people go into play with certain expectations that are not met. This leads to the creation heartbreakers as described. I agree whole-heartedly with Jack on this, because I've seen so many games that pipe "Story is the thing! Fewer rules for better stories!" Heck, I used to do it myself.

IMO, Vampire itself is a link in a chain of heartbreaker type games that stretches across RPG history. Such games recognize particular play goals (sometimes even admitting that such a style is merely "different" and not "the one way to game") but fail to realize those goals mechanically. This is really all GNS cohesion is about: Identifying play goals, and crafting mechanics to actively address those goals, rather than hindering or "getting out of the way."

[greyorm]

Paganini, you seem to be saying that the sort of people I describe (and am), who find the Vampire rules have supported strongly narrative and dramaturgic play, are wrong, that as a matter of objective fact they don't do that. I can only say, um, you're wrong. Because they did it for me and others, and I could adduce examples until the cows come home.

That, however, is where you're wrong! (Heh)
This is like saying D&D's rules support dramatic, narrative play because this group or that group did it -- heck, MY D&D group does it (as I've written about over in Actual Play a number of times)! The flat answer to that, and the one I give as well, is D&D does not support dramatic, narrative play.

This may seem like a no-brainer given "what D&D is," but stick "Storyteller" in there in place of "D&D" and compare the two statements and you'll see what I'm getting at.

I would bet my left sock every one of the groups you mention or examples you can cite are the result of Drift. Certain rules of Vampire (or any Storyteller game) are geared to provide Narrative focus, unfortunately, the rest of the system then gets in the way.

BTW, I think we need to come to a description of what "narrative" or "dramaturgic" play mean in the context of what we are discussing, because we may easily be talking past one another. What is your objective definition of narrative play and dramatic play, and how are they concretely told apart from other forms of play?

[szilard]

This is like saying D&D's rules support dramatic, narrative play because this group or that group did it -- heck, MY D&D group does it (as I've written about over in Actual Play a number of times)! The flat answer to that, and the one I give as well, is D&D does not support dramatic, narrative play.

It isn't quite the same.

I believe what Bruce was saying was that the group acheived dramatic, narrative play due (at least in part) to certain rules (notably Humanity and Archetypes) that exist in Vampire. If his only point was the one you had we could just refer him to "System Does Matter." He knows that system matters.

I guess that my point would be that, yes, certain rules in V:tM support more narrativist play. Other rules, however, might get in the way of it. Would V:tM have been a better game if it were more coherent - if all of its rules supported (or at least didn't hinder) narrativist play? For some people, yeah. I suspect, though, that it wouldn't have sold nearly as well as it did...

but that's another point, entirely.

Stuart

[greyorm]

I believe what Bruce was saying was that the group acheived dramatic, narrative play due (at least in part) to certain rules (notably Humanity and Archetypes) that exist in Vampire.

Heya Stuart,

That is actually the point I was attempting to make. Frex, I could as easily state that D&D's alignment system and Charisma-based skill checks supported dramatic results and our group achieved it because we used them. This doesn't make D&D any more suited to narrative play, however, no matter the existance of singular rules.

[Valamir]

I think perhaps there are a few misconceptions about coherent play that are muddying up the discussion.

First, Coherent play does not mean "can only do one thing".  Therefor arguements about prefering Incoherent games because one like to do different types of things are a fallacy.

Second, there is NOTHING absolutely nothing that group A can do with a coherent game, that group B can't do with an incoherent game.  Therefor examples of "but my group does all kinds of play like that with this game so there for this game must not be incoherent like you say" is also a fallacy.

Third, Incoherent does not mean broken crappy mechanics.  Some of the mechanics subsystems in Vampire were brilliantly innovative at the time they were first released.  Quality of the underlying mechanic has no bearing on Coherent or Incoherent.  

Coherent IS NOT a euphimism for  "good game" or "a game we like".  Incoherent IS NOT a euphimism for "crappy game" or "a game we don't like".


Group B can have exactly the same roleplaying experience with an incoherent game that Group A has with a coherent one.

The difference being that group A is doing it because of the system, and group B is doing it despite the system.  Or more precisely, group B is doing it despite those elements of the system that are fighting against what they're trying to do.

[Paul Czege]

I believe what Bruce was saying was that the group acheived dramatic, narrative play due (at least in part) to certain rules (notably Humanity and Archetypes) that exist in Vampire.

Didn't Jared once say that you could make Narrativist Vampire with Nature, Demeanor and Humanity? The attributes and skills are noise in an otherwise nicely realized Narrativist system.

Paul

[Bruce Baugh]

BTW, I think we need to come to a description of what "narrative" or "dramaturgic" play mean in the context of what we are discussing, because we may easily be talking past one another. What is your objective definition of narrative play and dramatic play, and how are they concretely told apart from other forms of play?

I'm still not entirely happy with any taxonomy I know for this kind of thing, so this is a good chance to clarify. That is to say, "I'm glad you asked that!" :)

White Wolf games present themselves as suitable for creating characters who begin with interesting personalities and who have the potential to evolve in ways that fit the emotional and spiritual ambience of the game world as well as the characters' personal histories, and as suitable for playing games where external events in the game world mesh with the characters' internal development and also conform to expectations shaped by literary and other inspirations.

Of these, I think they're weakest on the details of plotting. Well, the games do well for a lot of folks in producing play that leads players to look back and say "that was cool and appropriate and it hangs together" - the after-play evaluation of events, that is. The games do not provide much advice at all when it comes to planning a sequence of events in advance, particularly in the core books. Some of the mechanics and advice in Adventure reflect Andrew Bates' and my interest in setting up interesting environments and then just turning the characters loose in them. If I'm feeling overt in my metaphorage, I say that I like to build games like a mobile that gets pushed into motion as play begins; if I'm feeling more esoteric, I say that I run a Situationist game rather than a plotted one.

But when it comes to character creation and character development through attempted action and internal and external response, the games seem to work precisely as advertised for quite a few players.

One way, of course, players feel satisfied with a game is by adjusting expectations downward. I got started in gaming back when we were all waiting for the second two volumes of AD&D to appear (anyone remember the Warlock house rules/supplement?), because I was (and am) a big swords & sorcery fan, among other things. I had little interest in dungeon crawling, but I put up with it because that was about what the system did. I never really got reconciled to it, though, which is why I stopped playing D&D after a while, a fair chunk of my professional work these days has as one of its subtexts "this is what I wanted when I was 13". I want to make it clear that I do know that there are folks who come to the WW games with high expectations that, for whatever reason, never get fulfilled in play, and so they end up settling for what they can get or leaving. I'm specifically not talking about that resignation, but about the experience of players who say "I wanted a game about <some sort of supernatural beastie> that would give me room for melodrama and action and introspection and exploration of exotic physical environments and social milieus, and I got it in play; this is what I wanted."

Now, in a world where there are hard-core SenZar fans, I realize that it's hard to draw any absolute lines. But even allowing for a bit of fuzziness in boundaries - what's the system, what's the blessing of a good group, what's the luck of particular circumstances of play, and so on - I have myself had good play that I attribute to good support from the system toward accomplishing its goals, and I've seen this happen for others. Keeping in mind that I test out most of what I write and also play stuff for fun, and that I end up in touch a pretty wide range of folks about their experience (as a fairly visible contributor, I end up as one of the de facto net reps), I think I have a good handle on the relative frequency of various failure modes.

One thing that the stock WoD system really doesn't do well is atmospheric combat. Adventure improved on it, and my friend and recurrent partner in crime, er, writing and dvelopment Geoff Grabowski and his crew improved a lot more on that for Exalted. Exalted combat is both crunchy and atmospheric, I think. But I don't get the impression that we're concerned here primarily with that. And when it comes to the interesting and suitable development of characters and the unfolding of interesting and suitable changes in their environment, then I'd have to say that the system seems to work pretty well a goodly fraction of the time.

[Bruce Baugh]

Didn't Jared once say that you could make Narrativist Vampire with Nature, Demeanor and Humanity? The attributes and skills are noise in an otherwise nicely realized Narrativist system.

I've wondered about that from time to time ever since I saw how much you can get done with no-skills Tri-Stat. I'd want a few categories besides Nature, Demeanor, and Humanity, but not many more - not so many I'd have to go barefoot to count them all.

[Mike Holmes]

See, that's the point, Bruce. "It works well a goodly fraction of the time", translates to us as, "when the players all share the same play goals, it works great". When play is coherent in WW games, it's a pretty good system.

The problem is that you're anecdotes are, I'm guessing, about play with like-minded indviduals. Perhaps some of who had a hand in the games' designs? Anyhow, we wouldn't expect problems from such a group.

The problems arise when Gamist player A does something "gamey" (like. perhaps committing diablerie, because "it's the only way to get more powerful") and it annoys the Sim player ("But you're not considering the ramifications when the Camarilla finds out").

The problem with the design is that it supports each of these decisions equally. So each player feels justified in playing their way. This is Incoherent play. And it's a leading cause of the end of games, or at least of the odd player dropping out. I'm sure you're aware of what I'm describing.

So, sure, lot's of VtM play is quite coherent, and people enjoy it. Nopbody's saying it can't happen. All we're saying is that if the system had been designed to support only one mode, then you might not have as many dissaffected players. OTOH, you might have fewer players overall, because only a smaller proportion would like the mode supported.

So the question is, are these games designed to produce the best possible play for a small group, or to cater to the desires of the largest number of players despite the fact that play may get messed up by that wide appeal?

The second option explains both the games' success, and the reports of dissafected players.

OTOH, the storyteller system is no different than 90% of games out there in this. Perhaps more pointedly problematic from a GNS perspective than most, but not markedly so. Consider the vast number of games that are Simmy, but feel the need to put in rules to limit "gamist creep". These are classic examples of games that often lead to incoherent play.

Mike

[Paganini]

The thing to keep in mind is that Vampire has conflicting statements of play goals before we even encounter any mechanics. Vampire devotes a lot of space to describing the game in terms of play-style and content, without mentioning specific mechanics. Here's a quick summary of the important GNS theory:

The act of role-playing is essentially an act of collective imagination. Ron has labeled this concept Exploration. The participants, as a group, create a fictional reality, shared by all, through a combination of their individual imaginings. The extent to which any given participant may exert control over the shared reality must be defined by some regulatory agent. The ability to influence the shared reality is called Credibility. The regulatory agent is System. This is what the Lumpley Principle is about: all role-playing mechanics define the limit of each participant's Credibility to a greater or lesser degree. System may be as simple as an unstated agreement (Social Contract) or as complex as a set of detailed algorithms.

Vampire's stated goals are in absolute conflict with themselves. The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast basically says that simultaneous Credibility may not exist, yet Vampire proposes exactly that. Furthermore, thematic play in morally difficult situations, causal events, and tactical decision making may not be simultaneously prioritized. When these elements arise during play, the participants will have to determine which one is important. If all of the participants are of like mind then this will be no big deal - drift happens unconciously and automaticaly. If the participants are not of like mind, then conflict will ocurr as Mike describes. The rules can not resolve such conflict, because they fallaciously assume that such conflicts will not arise, that the play goals can coexist.

Here are some quotes from the second edition to showcase the conflicts:

Rules:

"They are used mainly to avoid arguments . . . and to add a deeper sense of realism to the story. Rules direct and guide the progress of the story, and help define the capacities and weaknesses of the characters."

Storyteller:

". . . the person who creates and guides the stories."

"The Storyteller describes what happens as a result of what the players say and do, and must decide if the characters succeed or fail, suffer or prosper, live or die."

"[the Storyteller] doesn't simply tell the story; instead, she must create the skeleton of a story and then let the players flesh it out by living the roles of its leading characters. . . . mostly she must decide what occurs in reaction to the words and actions of the characters - as realistically, impartially and creatively as she possibly can."

Player:

". . . you are inside the story and not just watching it. You are creating it as you go along, and the outcome is always uncertain."

"That is what this game is all about: not stories told to you, but stories you will tell yourself."

"Vampire is not only a storytelling game, but a roleplaying game as well. You not only tell stories, but actually act through them by taking on the roles of the central characters. It's a lot like acting, only you make up the lines."

"You decide what risks to accept or decline. Everything you say and do when you  play your character has an effect on the world."

"To some extent, you are a Storyteller as well as a player, and should feel free to add ideas and elements to the story, though the Storyteller may accept or reject them as she sees fit.

"As a player, you try to do things which allow your character to succeed, so as to "win the game." This strategic element of the game is essential, for it is what so often creates the thrill and excitement of a dramatic moment."

"Although Vampire is a game, it is more about storytelling than it is about winning."

"There is no single "winner" of Vampire, since the object is not to defeat the other players. To win at all, you need to cooperate with the other players. Because this is a storytelling game, there is no way for one person to claim victory. In fact, Vampire is a game in which you are likely to lose, for it is difficult to do anything to slow your character's inexorable slide into madness. The whole idea is to hang on as long as possible and eke out the most drama from the ongoing tragedy."

It's important to realize that the above quotes are from Vampire's discussion of actual play. That is, if this is the first time you've encountered an RPG, this is the part of the book that tells you "how an RPG works." With these statements, the designers are describing how they intend Credibility to be aportioned by the mechanics.

It's no wonder that after wading through this tangle of vague and contradictory statements that so many players come away with confused notions of what the game is intended to prioritize. It seems as though the designers themselves didn't even really know.

[Mike Holmes]

It's no wonder that after wading through this tangle of vague and contradictory statements that so many players come away with confused notions of what the game is intended to prioritize. It seems as though the designers themselves didn't even really know.

Uh, isn't that a little harsh, Nathan? I mean every game text before that point had stuff like that. The idea that the Impossible Thing was impossible only occured with the advent of the theory (note: theory) of this site. The designers had a very good idea of what they wanted. They were just not aware that in the attempt that problems would be caused. Do we blame them for trying?

Further, your statements about the Impossible Thing are likely to be misinterpereted. You make it sound as though one cannot have the GM control the world, and the players control their characters. They can, of course. The control that can't be shared is of creation of "story" in the Narrativist sense. Bruce, I hope you see the distinction.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Well, to give a couple actual ideas instead of high brow GNS flim-flam.

If you wanted to make VtM promote cooperative storytelling more I've got some frightening ideas.

1) Remove split dice pools.  Arguement can be make that split dice pools encourage tactical thinking, particularly in the combat system.

2) Gut the combat system.  I don't mean rewrite it, I mean remove it.  See this here thread.

3) Ditch game balance.  By this I mean ditch points (starting, experience, or freebie).  Just fill in the dots to make the character you want for the story.  Some vampires will be better than others, that's normal for vampire fiction.  Still keep all those backgrounds and personality/concept merits and flaws as character concept seeds, just don't charge for them or reward for them.  If you want to learn something new, play it out (which the game already encourages you to do).

Now, these are just my opinions and I seriously doubt you could create a popular game by doing this.  After all, now it's a 'broken' system.  There are, I'm sure, a zillion other ideas floating around in people's heads here - I just picked the scary ones to highlight Mike's point about coherency and marketability.

[Paganini]

Uh, isn't that a little harsh, Nathan? I mean every game text before that point had stuff like that. The idea that the Impossible Thing was impossible only occured with the advent of the theory (note: theory) of this site. The designers had a very good idea of what they wanted. They were just not aware that in the attempt that problems would be caused. Do we blame them for trying?

Hmm, well, I see what you're saying Mike. I guess if you just looked at this thread it would seem a bit like bashing. Just be aware that I say this stuff about all kinds of games . . . AD&D, frex. And just this week I was examining Don't Look Back (didn't post about it, didn't seem worth it) with similar conclusions.

The only reason Vampire bugs me more than any other such game is it's presentation as something different, something better for story gamers, etc., but it makes the exact same mistakes as the predecessors it was trying to overcome.

Edit: Cruciel, simulpost with you.

Well, no, it's not a broken system. Now it's a vampire clone of the heartbreaker variety that's just exactly what Jack was talking about in the ver first post. "Aha," you say. "These rules don't work! Can them, and everything is fine!" OK, great. But why use the system at all now? Why not just play freeform? Or use the Window. It's basically what you describe. (I.e., free chargen, no combat system.)

Wouldn't it be better to design a game that will actually help you do what you want to do, rather than just gutting the hindering elements out of an existing system?

[Bruce Baugh]

*shrug* Okay, I don't have much to say in response to assertions that my experience is impossible. I disagree, or I wouldn't think it was my experience, but I'm also not here to piss in other people's beer about interpretative frameworks. I note the disagreement and move on.

I do agree that it makes more sense to start from scratch with fresh projects. Take inspiration, sure, but building fresh lets you avoid a lot of baggage.

[Jason Lee]

Well, no, it's not a broken system. Now it's a vampire clone of the heartbreaker variety that's just exactly what Jack was talking about in the ver first post. "Aha," you say. "These rules don't work! Can them, and everything is fine!" OK, great. But why use the system at all now? Why not just play freeform? Or use the Window. It's basically what you describe. (I.e., free chargen, no combat system.)

Wouldn't it be better to design a game that will actually help you do what you want to do, rather than just gutting the hindering elements out of an existing system?

Well, I won't argue with that.  I was just throwing out how I would fix VtM to be more narration oriented, for more concrete examples of what might be considered incoherent in VtM (without breaking its Simminess).  No suprise that that creates the alleged heartbreaker (which is just trying to fix a game instead of starting fresh).