What is Step on Up for?
Caldis:
The way I see it in big model terms theme is closely tied to color. Color as one of the five elements of exploration is huge but it is still only one element and while some styles of play may emphasize it others may prefer system or characters or some other combination that makes sense to them.
I'm thinking that what you see with D&D4 (and much of the earlier edition play I was involved in) is emphasis on system at the expense of color. There's no drop of the SIS they are still resolving the actions of the imaginary characters in situations but the players are engaged in the system that makes that happen rather than the characters or thematic material that is created. I believe this also applies to the Right to Dream play in something like Gurps but in a slightly different fashion where the meaning of events may be less important than the development of characters over time and it's relationship to system.
Of course my definition of RPG is pretty broad and things like Descent or Warhammer quest are pretty close to being in. They arent far off of what myself and a lot of people I knew back in the early 80's were doing with AD&D. We'd make characters and send them off on the dangerous mission of the week. Little in the way of personality, even less that had any meaningful expression in game, little in the way of motivations for the characters but plenty of imagining a group of characters wandering into a dungeon for an unknown purpose and seeing what happened. That was our SIS, we were imagining these characters wandering around in a dungeon looking for any signs of monsters deciding when to attack and when to flee and what spell to use to help us defeat them or escape. There is a very broad view of theme where all these characters have made an ethical choice to go and kill monsters and loot dungeons but I dont see that informing play very much save that you know you need to make dungeons, populate it with monsters and stick some treasure in there.
David Berg:
Simon,
Re: your 6 questions to Jasper:
I've often found myself asking those to some friends who roleplay much as Caldis describes (lotsa system-contact, little color). "Why aren't you guys just playing a boardgame?" (Which they often did!) The answer, as best I can recall from observing:
You know how when you almost lose a boardgame, but stay in, there's a moment of "Yeah! Thank God! Whew!"? And you know how when you win a teamwork boardgame, you all high-five each other? Acting those moments out in-character with Dying as the "near-loss" and Cool New Toys as "winning" is fun. Your imagination lends a sense of epic-ness to the experience that moving pieces around a board usually doesn't.
As far as I can tell, the kind of challenge that lends vitality to conflict in support of theme can exist in all sorts of play. But the big "C" Challenge of true Gamist play means you can play with as much theme as a boardgame.
Ps,
-David
Motipha:
Perhaps I am just being obtuse, but allow me to rephrase my question. The title of this essay, as well as the one before (What is Right to Dream for) seem to suggest a reinterpretation of these two creative agendas. Your point seems to be "While in the GNS model Step on Up is treated as a qualitatively different method of play than Story Now, play that would be classified as Step on Up is fundamentally about theme and premise." I interpret this as a narrowed argument of a larger point, "For a game to be roleplaying, it must contain theme or premise." Simon, is that at least close to what you are saying?
Roger:
I'll share a bit of D&D 4E actual play that I enjoyed just last weekend:
The characters had infiltrated an enemy fortress by means of an old sewer pipe, and had found themselves in a little area enclosed by boxes and crates. Someone rolled a decent Perception check and goblins could be heard nearby.
I noticed my character could speak Goblin, so I had him grunt "Hey, get over here" from behind the boxes. So a few goblins wandered over and the battle was joined.
It's the sort of thing I see all the time in Step On Up play -- this use of player knowledge ("goblins are fairly dumb and also cowardly") to gain a tactical advantage to be exploited. There might be a roll -- see if you can Bluff these guys into falling for that, or something -- or there might not, but it's all pretty ad hoc, consensus-based, let's Step Right On Up play. Of course goblins are dumb and cowardly. No one needs to look into the rulebooks to check that out.
So we're fighting away in there and a swarm of centipedes amorphously swarms through the boxes and crates and starts laying waste to the party from behind. I doubt there was anything explicitly written down in the encounter about whether they could do that, but there was no need -- of course they could do that. Everyone's in consensus about that sort of thing. And if there is a player in that sort of situation who does complain about it, that guy is likely to get the most grief and social-contract-enforcement from the most serious Step On Up players.
A bit later on my guy climbed up on some boxes and performed a diving Death From Above charge on a goblin. Nothing explicitly covered by the rules. But everyone thought it was great, and great within that Step On Up agenda. To be clear about this -- they thought the attempt was great. The actual result has very little bearing on the appreciation of it -- indeed, it seems half the time spectacular failure is even more cherished. He happened to do some damage to the goblin, and to himself, and that was also great, but that wasn't the most important part of it.
How do other players know I'm the hardcore Step On Up guy at the table? Because I also typically self-appoint into a co-DM role. Pretty much every encounter, I'll remind the DM, hey, that monster over there didn't attack anyone, or hey wait, I forgot to take that ongoing damage, didn't I, and that sort of thing. And that sometimes confuses some of the other players a bit, and mildly chagrins a few more, but that confusion isn't among the other Step On Up players. They know sometimes to need to call your own fouls.
As has been pointed out, it's about challenge. Challenge and honor. There's no honor in succeeding in a battle because the DM forgot to use Reach 2 half the time. Intentionally neglecting ("forgetting") to take ongoing damage isn't even conceivable. Of course Step On Up players are going to metagame against their own characters. It's one of the easiest ways to spot them.
I know I risk being horribly misquoted and misunderstood here, but I'll tell you exactly what comes to mind: "Let me win, but if I can not win, let me be brave in the attempt." That covers just about everything I've felt and seen in the best of Step On Up play.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger:
Sorry to double-post, but I just remembered another event that seems relevant to this line of inquiry.
We were getting near the end of the adventure, so we'd been playing for about three hours solid, and the DM set up the last battlemat and described the scene. He was using generic monster counters, numbered, instead of miniatures.
After three rounds of combat, I finally noticed -- hey, you never told us what we're actually fighting! Laughter and chagrin all around. Oh, it's goblins, like we were fighting before. Okay.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page