Excellent post. You put into words much of the ideas I've discovered over the last dozen years or so (and attempted to convey), this difference between imaginative play (story creation...what my young daughter used to call "D&D 3" with no relation to 3E) and experiential gaming (standard, rule-driven D&D). Both have value, but they are two very different things.
A topic articulating concerns I've long had about TTRPGs. Too much power creep. Too many easy wins. I liked DnD from the 1970s; one had to garner much experience to make the next level. One *earned* it.
Later, I took to Runequest III. It has about the best combat system yet devised, made by persons experienced in SCA combat.
I've yet to find a magic system worth a hoot. Magic is a metaphor for madness; a little crazy goes a long, long way. Too much magic makes a game suffer badly, particularly when spells are stripped of dire consequences/costs for their use. (Looking at you CoC version VII)
God is infinite; God made man all He is not. The one thing He is not is *limited.*
In our constraints and limitations, we find all meaning. As it must be.
This is a great read, as someone who has a daughter who is 2, im looking for ways to engage with her that won’t be on a screen but can be fun, creative, and imaginative.
I have a couple questions:
1. How’d you get her into this in the first place? And
2. Where do you delineate story and adventure game? It’s just as simple as the creation of the world, and therefore you create limitations in that way (almost like an FKR style game)? I would imagine you’re not using a true “system”- maybe some random tables? (If I’m wrong please tell me).
3. Do you think there is a way to combine the “story game” and “adventure game”? Or are they better as two separate entities?
2. The delineation of story game vs adventure game?
Storygame - “I say what happens next.”
Adventure Game - “I say what my character does next.”
3. Yes, I think you could compromise the telos of either to have something in between, and in fact I plan to do this. I also have a post describing my thoughts on story gaming “Storygaming has become a dirty word.” I do consider them two different things.
The best summary of storygame vs adventure game I've ever seen:
Storygame - “I say what happens next.”
Adventure Game - “I say what my character does next.”
As a player, I strongly prefer adventure games, and so a designer I design adventure games. I do not like story game mechanics to blur into adventure games, as it erodes my interest in the game (for all the reasons you stated). This is why I cannot get behind some of the mechanics that suggest GM authority be offloaded onto the players, asking them what happens next instead of having the GM do it.
This is how I aspire to write about games one day. Thank you so much for thinking through this -- especially with your kid -- and putting it into words for us.
Greetings. I really liked the post, thanks for making it. Even in terms of design I sometimes feel compelled by both sides. It's one of the reason why I really like the resolution system of OD&D with Chainmail: you have man-to-man/mass combat for more "simulation" wargame style adventure, and you have the heroic combat for more mythic resolution (e.g. Bard slaying Smaug). However, sometimes I do feel like I wish I could jump from "narrative resolution" (narrative games) to "simulation resolution" (wargames or D&D style) in a flow/spectrum. But I feel it wouldn't jam well at my table that is decidedly more simulationist.
On another note, would you mind if I send you a personal message with some questions? I have a 3.5 years old daughter, she's in love with The Hobbit, and I'm sure she would really like playing RPGs, but I feel stuck in "starting". Thanks.
We have noticed a difference and I think it’s fair to say (just imo/ime) OD&D is much more gamey than simulation, and I think that’s fine.
In a Macrisian simulation way, it’s a flavor added to a dish for effect, rather than a strict bucket category.
My Daughter loves the Hobbit, I read it to her almost every other night after Bible stories. I’d really enjoy talking to you about that, 3.5 is perfect. Myrpgelite@gmail.com or mythicmountains on Discord
I love running games for small kids. In one game the party of adventurers met a ferocious bear in the woods, who roared at the them menacingly. One little girl in the group made my day by going up to the bear and saying "What's wrong?" A statement which changed the entire context of the encounter.
The reply was, of course, "I have a thorn in my paw." To which our would-be paladin pulled it out carefully and bandaged it up, making friends with the animal folk of the woods. and the party subsequently went on to help the animals deal with the evil goblins that were causing them trouble., so adventure was still had.
Would the change happen with an older group of players. Probably not, because they would have automatically assumed the bear was just a bear and either ran or, more probably, fought it.
For me it is interaction with the environment that is the important aspect of playing the game. Story is created by play for me and deepens the experience and allows for more consequence. After all stealing a 5000gp ruby from the eye of a statue in a temple becomes a simple matter of then fencing the aforementioned item. Stealing the Sacred Eye of Gruhak on the other hand, was ostensibly the same exact act, is much more fraught with subsequent possibility.
This is far more about difficulty than about narrative vs simulation. You can make a simulation game where you are already functionally all powerful enough to achieve any goals - like having the magic spell for any occasion. You can have story games where you can't narrate anything you want into existence, and are often subject to the whims of the world.
Excellent post. You put into words much of the ideas I've discovered over the last dozen years or so (and attempted to convey), this difference between imaginative play (story creation...what my young daughter used to call "D&D 3" with no relation to 3E) and experiential gaming (standard, rule-driven D&D). Both have value, but they are two very different things.
Your contrast between "imaginative play" and "experiential gaming" is well put.
A topic articulating concerns I've long had about TTRPGs. Too much power creep. Too many easy wins. I liked DnD from the 1970s; one had to garner much experience to make the next level. One *earned* it.
Later, I took to Runequest III. It has about the best combat system yet devised, made by persons experienced in SCA combat.
I've yet to find a magic system worth a hoot. Magic is a metaphor for madness; a little crazy goes a long, long way. Too much magic makes a game suffer badly, particularly when spells are stripped of dire consequences/costs for their use. (Looking at you CoC version VII)
God is infinite; God made man all He is not. The one thing He is not is *limited.*
In our constraints and limitations, we find all meaning. As it must be.
This is a great read, as someone who has a daughter who is 2, im looking for ways to engage with her that won’t be on a screen but can be fun, creative, and imaginative.
I have a couple questions:
1. How’d you get her into this in the first place? And
2. Where do you delineate story and adventure game? It’s just as simple as the creation of the world, and therefore you create limitations in that way (almost like an FKR style game)? I would imagine you’re not using a true “system”- maybe some random tables? (If I’m wrong please tell me).
3. Do you think there is a way to combine the “story game” and “adventure game”? Or are they better as two separate entities?
Thank you!
1. She demanded it!
2. The delineation of story game vs adventure game?
Storygame - “I say what happens next.”
Adventure Game - “I say what my character does next.”
3. Yes, I think you could compromise the telos of either to have something in between, and in fact I plan to do this. I also have a post describing my thoughts on story gaming “Storygaming has become a dirty word.” I do consider them two different things.
The best summary of storygame vs adventure game I've ever seen:
Storygame - “I say what happens next.”
Adventure Game - “I say what my character does next.”
As a player, I strongly prefer adventure games, and so a designer I design adventure games. I do not like story game mechanics to blur into adventure games, as it erodes my interest in the game (for all the reasons you stated). This is why I cannot get behind some of the mechanics that suggest GM authority be offloaded onto the players, asking them what happens next instead of having the GM do it.
This is how I aspire to write about games one day. Thank you so much for thinking through this -- especially with your kid -- and putting it into words for us.
Greetings. I really liked the post, thanks for making it. Even in terms of design I sometimes feel compelled by both sides. It's one of the reason why I really like the resolution system of OD&D with Chainmail: you have man-to-man/mass combat for more "simulation" wargame style adventure, and you have the heroic combat for more mythic resolution (e.g. Bard slaying Smaug). However, sometimes I do feel like I wish I could jump from "narrative resolution" (narrative games) to "simulation resolution" (wargames or D&D style) in a flow/spectrum. But I feel it wouldn't jam well at my table that is decidedly more simulationist.
On another note, would you mind if I send you a personal message with some questions? I have a 3.5 years old daughter, she's in love with The Hobbit, and I'm sure she would really like playing RPGs, but I feel stuck in "starting". Thanks.
We have noticed a difference and I think it’s fair to say (just imo/ime) OD&D is much more gamey than simulation, and I think that’s fine.
In a Macrisian simulation way, it’s a flavor added to a dish for effect, rather than a strict bucket category.
My Daughter loves the Hobbit, I read it to her almost every other night after Bible stories. I’d really enjoy talking to you about that, 3.5 is perfect. Myrpgelite@gmail.com or mythicmountains on Discord
I love running games for small kids. In one game the party of adventurers met a ferocious bear in the woods, who roared at the them menacingly. One little girl in the group made my day by going up to the bear and saying "What's wrong?" A statement which changed the entire context of the encounter.
The reply was, of course, "I have a thorn in my paw." To which our would-be paladin pulled it out carefully and bandaged it up, making friends with the animal folk of the woods. and the party subsequently went on to help the animals deal with the evil goblins that were causing them trouble., so adventure was still had.
Would the change happen with an older group of players. Probably not, because they would have automatically assumed the bear was just a bear and either ran or, more probably, fought it.
For me it is interaction with the environment that is the important aspect of playing the game. Story is created by play for me and deepens the experience and allows for more consequence. After all stealing a 5000gp ruby from the eye of a statue in a temple becomes a simple matter of then fencing the aforementioned item. Stealing the Sacred Eye of Gruhak on the other hand, was ostensibly the same exact act, is much more fraught with subsequent possibility.
This is far more about difficulty than about narrative vs simulation. You can make a simulation game where you are already functionally all powerful enough to achieve any goals - like having the magic spell for any occasion. You can have story games where you can't narrate anything you want into existence, and are often subject to the whims of the world.