D&D started it all!

[Saint_Proverbius]

<A href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/">Computer and Video Games</a> has a <a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=157343&site=pcg">fun little article</a> about the influence of <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome">Dungeons and Dragons</a>(Which now apparently has big, expensive books devoted just to <i>ph4 l3wt</i> which suggests the influence goes both ways) on modern computer games. It's got a bunch of quotes from a lot of the folks making games, including our beloved <b>Chris Avellone</b>:
<blockquote>If, for some people, PC RPGs have replaced the game that inspired them, it doesn't mean that the two have nothing to teach each other. The best example of how the two cross-pollinate comes from Chris Avellone, Creative Director and co-owner of Obsidian (who've just finished their D&D game Neverwinter Nights 2), veteran of PC RPGs at Black Isle and Sainted Hero Of All for his part in the sublime Planescape Torment. Chris uses D&D to plan his videogames, well in advance of actually making them.

"We've used pen-and-paper role-playing to test out new computer game systems, as well as characters and area designs," says Chris. "Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game. "It's like instant sounding-board feedback from players before you even build the area in the engine," Chris continues.</blockquote>
Plus it's super easy to talk Feargus in to springing for the Doritos and Mountain Dew.

Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.ve3d.com">Voodoo Extreme</A>

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game.

NWN2... PnP... flow in the initial areas... what.

 

[Durwyn]

Lets try LARPing NWN 2. This will give us real flow...

 

[taxacaria]

Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game.

NWN2... PnP... flow in the initial areas... what.

I fear you've misinterpreted that. What he meant is the devs used both a sheet of paper and a pencil sometimes to test the flow of game.

 

[Durwyn]

Some people should not be allowed to use pen and paper...

 

[Oarfish]

Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game

Yeah, right. Because piling 150 deaf and blind 'thugs' into a generic warehouse and giving them banzai tactics when someone comes within 30 feet makes for good pnp. Its been a while since I played pnp, but I think I recall that most of the fun didn't come from the dice rolling. Though given I GMd space/role master my memory may be playing tricks on me Much more brutal combat than shitty D&D in that system though, high level or no. Rank D automatic weapon criticals for the win.

 

[Texas Red]

Im not a D&D player but I can assume that hacking through dozens upons dozens of generic orcs in generic caves would make for one boring and annoying PnP session.

 

[Volourn]

Yup. Unless you are focusing on combat which some campaigns do.

 

[Hamster]

Re: D&D started it all!

"Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game.

Heh, opening stage was the best part of the game, maybe if they roleplayed it further they would have noticed that begining from Highcliff city game started to suck increasing ammounts of donkey balls.

 

[dagorkan]

Funny article.

Maybe it's different for younger gamers though where there isn't that same linear progression (Boardgames -> D&D -> CRPGs). I remember I played Ultima type games on shareware CDs long before I heard of D&D or roleplaying. Before that I'd read Fighting Fantasy (Choose-Your-Own-Story) books which I think are the true first RPGs (being invented before D&D). I didn't get into fantasy really until after I played Warcraft II the background stories of which encouraged me to read 'Lord of the Rings'. I became a pretty big Tolkien fan, Raymond E Feist, Robert Jordan etc and that led me first to tabletop wargames (Warhammer etc) and then to D&D.

 

[caliban]

Yup. Unless you are focusing on combat which some campaigns do.

Sending wave after wave of generic enemies at the player characters is hardly a good way to make a decent scenario, no?
A combat campain needs to have devious traps, surprise attacks, tactical challenges in a quickly changing situation and all that jazz... not just lots of dice throws.

 

[Texas Red]

Re: D&D started it all!

"Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game.

Heh, opening stage was the best part of the game, maybe if they roleplayed it further they would have noticed that begining from Highcliff city game started to suck increasing ammounts of donkey balls.

I agree. The combat was even rather interesting without those bunch of companions requiring attention and piles of uber loot that needs to be monitored. There were plenty of variety in scenery, moral choises and story changes as well.

Personally I would keep the max level as 11 or so during the main part of the game, then rapidly give huge experience awards by the end due to some event(a deity grants wisdom and power or something). And I simply dont understand who was the genius who figured that players would enjoy the ph4t l007 in such tremendous numbers. It would fairly decent if you wouldnt be forced to switch party members cosntantly and rearrange and buy new items etc for them. Based on what I read on the forums those who enjoy high magic level worlds are in minority.

Anyway, NWN 2 would be a pretty damn good game if not for the cookie cutter filler combat and the rediculous gear. I cant see myself EVER replaying it just because those caves are a horror.

In the end I think if Obsidian wouldnt worry so much about getting a good start by being Biowhore's little bitch and focus on their own ideas and creativity, they wouldnt have to put up with Atari's orders about keeping the crappy engine totally unfit for party based games.

Obsidian is just another mainstream whore. Cant wait till I see how their creativity would be smothered by the publishers, their greed to expand so they can make 3 games simultanously, Alien franchinse lisence holders and limitations for the consoles and its audience. God damnit, developers made a decent living in the 90s. And now the PC market has inscreased. They could be concentrating on making actual art, making their vision true etc. and *still*, without going mainstream, get their pockets filled. But they would rather force themselves to work on a setting that their couldnt give a slightest fuck about and get an extra thousand by providing family fun entertainment for kindergarten children.

 

[Volourn]

Games aren't art, you fuckin' moron.


Calliban: Not everyone agrees with you. I do; but not everyone. That's the awesomness of D&D (or any PnP game); it's all up to the players/DM how they want to play based what is fun for them; not for others.

 

[Bradylama]

Pictures aren't "art" either, that doesn't stop one from being called art.

 

[Koby]

"We've used pen-and-paper role-playing to test out new computer game systems, as well as characters and area designs," says Chris. "Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game.

That part is exactly what is wrong with modern CRPG, for me at least.

I like my P&P P&P: a simple and easy universal system (something along the line of d20 or GROUPS) that IS being used only for reference, where the most of the work (what happens, how it happens, etc) is job of the players and the DM. What ever doesn’t work/fit in the P&P system is instantly thrown out the windows and in exactly that moment human creativity comes into play.

In P&P the most important part of everything is in the description, as in the verbal one, whether it is the DM description of the room the character is in, the NPC he meets and in the description of the action of the character as it expressed by the player, in P&P, character stats are secondary to his description, and how the DM and the other characters perceive/interrupt him/his actions.

With a good DM, IMO, dice rolls are the least importance, and in P&P the "flow of the game" is completely at the hands of the players and the DM! back in the day when I played a lot of P&P (AD&D 2nd edition, dark conspiracy, ars megica, and rolemaster), mostly as a DM, everyone enjoyed a whole of a lot more from the moment I said "screw the dices, I have a good campaign and i'm not going to let the dices ruin it!", and as someone that got quite a few compliments on his DM skills I can tell you that just a few rolls of natural 20 and/or 1 can ruin a campaign.

A good campaign is about the plot, the obstacles the characters face, how the characters deal with those obstacles, whether it is a difficult battle or solving a mystery. A lot of bad DMs think that a good campaign is about contingencies, as in what happens if the dumb players kill an important (to the plot) NPC, even if he is a 20 level worrier (sometimes all it takes is ONE natural 20). The better the DM is, the less he uses the dices.

And that’s why P&P has nothing to do with CRPG, and shouldn’t be used to evaluate them, in a CRPG that employ a trait+skill system, everything depends on the character traits and skills, or to put it more simply, in CRPG the numbers have an important role (role with an e!) and should be handled accordingly by the game designers.

In a CRPG you have a computer, USE IT!!!

Simple game mechanics are for P&P where you don’t want to be bothered with calculation, not for CRPG, instead of advancing in that department modern CRPGs game mechanics gets dumber and simpler with every year.

 

[Volourn]

Sound slike you don't care for role-playing games; but actually do storytelling. Just make a play and get your friends to star in it. You might be better off for it.

 

[Koby]

Sound slike you don't care for role-playing games; but actually do storytelling. Just make a play and get your friends to star in it. You might be better off for it.

Your character ability/skill score, perks, profession and all the rest of the numbers and tags the character have plays a BIG role in role playing in a CRPG, consequences depends on the (1) range of the action your character can take (skill), and its ability to success in these action. On the (2) range of your character natural abilities: dexterity, agility and quickness, are three completely different traits, and endurance, constitution, and vitality are distinctly differ from each other (at least in their translation). The (3) range of you skill/traits in term of scale, with a range of 1 to 10 you usually cant employ learn by doing, skill synergy, and other technique that allow more detailed character progression. See the pattern?

/edit

The numbering system, should be an advanced, robust, detailed system, a system that will give players a better, more refined control on his character.

 

[dagorkan]

Koby, don't worry about Volourn attacking you. Ignore him. You are in the right.

 

[Human Shield]

The developers, and people that talk about less "rollplaying", just aren't familiar with systems outside of simulationist/gameist D&D and others (FYI the storyteller system from Vampire is simulationist despite their incoherent text).

I guess the developers just love illusionist play where they all follow the prescripted story like a passive audience.

That part is exactly what is wrong with modern CRPG, for me at least.

I like my P&P P&P: a simple and easy universal system (something along the line of d20 or GROUPS) that IS being used only for reference, where the most of the work (what happens, how it happens, etc) is job of the players and the DM. What ever doesn’t work/fit in the P&P system is instantly thrown out the windows and in exactly that moment human creativity comes into play.

Then why don't you play with a better rule system that actually supports your playstyle instead of drifting the rules with fiat.

System Does Matter

"I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely disagree.

"Whoa," you might say, "my GM Herbie can run anything. The game can suck, but he can toss out what he doesn't like and then it rocks." OK, fine. Herbie is talented. However, imagine how good he'd be if he didn't have to spend all that time culling the mechanics. (Recall here I'm talking about system, not source or story content material.) I'm suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't waste Herbie's time.

"Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely disagree."

In P&P the most important part of everything is in the description, as in the verbal one, whether it is the DM description of the room the character is in, the NPC he meets and in the description of the action of the character as it expressed by the player, in P&P, character stats are secondary to his description, and how the DM and the other characters perceive/interrupt him/his actions.

There is more then one style of P&P.

A lot of GMs that want a "story" just string the player characters along, letting them add color (descriptions) but not 'ruining the story'. The players can have a muted agreement to go along and they can enjoy it but talking about story creation (not dictation) could open new doors.

With a good DM, IMO, dice rolls are the least importance, and in P&P the "flow of the game" is completely at the hands of the players and the DM! back in the day when I played a lot of P&P (AD&D 2nd edition, dark conspiracy, ars megica, and rolemaster), mostly as a DM, everyone enjoyed a whole of a lot more from the moment I said "screw the dices, I have a good campaign and i'm not going to let the dices ruin it!", and as someone that got quite a few compliments on his DM skills I can tell you that just a few rolls of natural 20 and/or 1 can ruin a campaign.

So the players enjoyed you telling them a story through force.

Narrativism: Story Now

"Going "no system," especially for IIEE aspects of play, combines the undermining aspects of both of the above two approaches, especially when the author idealizes story as a product rather than Narrativist play as a process. Don't forget, all role-playing has a system; turning it over to "oh, just decide and have fun" merely makes the system crappy and prone to bullying.

What's the problem with this? Why am I being so harshly critical? It all goes back to Force - if establishing the IIEE circumstances is under one person's control, without reference to any System features, then scenes' outcomes become the province of that person. Which in turn means that the decisions and actions of player-characters are now details of this one person's decisions. Narrativist de-protagonism is the near-inevitable result."

Maybe trying to play a simulationist based game with a system designed for a different type of simulation (or even gameist) isn't the best choice. Why not use a system that isn't about tactical survival if you are just going to fudge everything anyways.

A good campaign is about the plot, the obstacles the characters face, how the characters deal with those obstacles, whether it is a difficult battle or solving a mystery. A lot of bad DMs think that a good campaign is about contingencies, as in what happens if the dumb players kill an important (to the plot) NPC, even if he is a 20 level worrier (sometimes all it takes is ONE natural 20). The better the DM is, the less he uses the dices.

A GM doesn't have to use dice to just lecture to passive players. A ruleset that is designed to create real stories can be as complex as it wants and still deliver story. You are sitting players down and removing how they impact the world, removing rules and options to 'expand creativity' instead of using a system that has rules made to expand creativity.

"Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dyfunctional: it works well when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript [series of events] ends up being a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so beyond accepting the GM's Techniques. I think that a shared "agreement to be deceived" is typically involved, i.e., the players agree not to look behind the Black Curtain. I suggest that people who like Illusionist play are very good at establishing and abiding by their tolerable degree of Force, and Secrets of Gamemastering seems to bear that out as the perceived main issue of satisfactory role-playing per se.

Producing a story via Force Techniques means that play must shift fully to Simulationist play. "Story" becomes Explored Situation, the character "works" insofar as he or she fits in, and the player's enjoyment arises from contributing to that fitting-in. However, for the Narrativist player, the issue is not the Curtain at all, but the Force. Force-based Techniques are pure poison for Narrativist play and vice versa. The GM (or a person currently in that role) can provide substantial input, notably adversity and Weaving, but not specific protagonist decisions and actions; that is the very essence of deprotagonizing Narrativist play."

 

[Koby]

That part is exactly what is wrong with modern CRPG, for me at least.

I like my P&P P&P: a simple and easy universal system (something along the line of d20 or GROUPS) that IS being used only for reference, where the most of the work (what happens, how it happens, etc) is job of the players and the DM. What ever doesn’t work/fit in the P&P system is instantly thrown out the windows and in exactly that moment human creativity comes into play.

Then why don't you play with a better rule system that actually supports your playstyle instead of drifting the rules with fiat.

1) Because the rules are static and my campaign, I, the players, the characters and the game world are not.
2) Because a certain rule doesn’t fit in and/or belong to my setting.
3) Because there wasn't a perfect rule system back when I played P&P (last time I played was 10 years ago), and there isn’t one now, and I don’t think there will ever be one.

System Does Matter

"I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely disagree.

"Whoa," you might say, "my GM Herbie can run anything. The game can suck, but he can toss out what he doesn't like and then it rocks." OK, fine. Herbie is talented. However, imagine how good he'd be if he didn't have to spend all that time culling the mechanics. (Recall here I'm talking about system, not source or story content material.) I'm suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't waste Herbie's time.

"Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely disagree."

I remember reading this , disagreed the first time I read it, and I disagree after reading it just now, anew.

In P&P the most important part of everything is in the description, as in the verbal one, whether it is the DM description of the room the character is in, the NPC he meets and in the description of the action of the character as it expressed by the player, in P&P, character stats are secondary to his description, and how the DM and the other characters perceive/interrupt him/his actions.

There is more then one style of P&P.

A lot of GMs that want a "story" just string the player characters along, letting them add color (descriptions) but not 'ruining the story'. The players can have a muted agreement to go along and they can enjoy it but talking about story creation (not dictation) could open new doors.

Again "how the DM and the other characters..." not the players, the PCs and the NPCs through the DM.
And you can also add to underlined part things like: how the character history and personality are affecting on his decision, and visa versa, how the character action redefine the character.
The protagonist personal story is just as important as the story/plot.

With a good DM, IMO, dice rolls are the least importance, and in P&P the "flow of the game" is completely at the hands of the players and the DM! back in the day when I played a lot of P&P (AD&D 2nd edition, dark conspiracy, ars megica, and rolemaster), mostly as a DM, everyone enjoyed a whole of a lot more from the moment I said "screw the dices, I have a good campaign and i'm not going to let the dices ruin it!", and as someone that got quite a few compliments on his DM skills I can tell you that just a few rolls of natural 20 and/or 1 can ruin a campaign.

So the players enjoyed you telling them a story through force.

Narrativism: Story Now

"Going "no system," especially for IIEE aspects of play, combines the undermining aspects of both of the above two approaches, especially when the author idealizes story as a product rather than Narrativist play as a process. Don't forget, all role-playing has a system; turning it over to "oh, just decide and have fun" merely makes the system crappy and prone to bullying.

What's the problem with this? Why am I being so harshly critical? It all goes back to Force - if establishing the IIEE circumstances is under one person's control, without reference to any System features, then scenes' outcomes become the province of that person. Which in turn means that the decisions and actions of player-characters are now details of this one person's decisions. Narrativist de-protagonism is the near-inevitable result."

Maybe trying to play a simulationist based game with a system designed for a different type of simulation (or even gameist) isn't the best choice. Why not use a system that isn't about tactical survival if you are just going to fudge everything anyways.

Handled correctly this shouldn’t be a problem.
A bad campaign/adventure is a bad campaign/adventure and "the system" cannot fix that.

A good campaign is about the plot, the obstacles the characters face, how the characters deal with those obstacles, whether it is a difficult battle or solving a mystery. A lot of bad DMs think that a good campaign is about contingencies, as in what happens if the dumb players kill an important (to the plot) NPC, even if he is a 20 level worrier (sometimes all it takes is ONE natural 20). The better the DM is, the less he uses the dices.

A GM doesn't have to use dice to just lecture to passive players. A ruleset that is designed to create real stories can be as complex as it wants and still deliver story. You are sitting players down and removing how they impact the world, removing rules and options to 'expand creativity' instead of using a system that has rules made to expand creativity.

"Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dyfunctional: it works well when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript [series of events] ends up being a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so beyond accepting the GM's Techniques. I think that a shared "agreement to be deceived" is typically involved, i.e., the players agree not to look behind the Black Curtain. I suggest that people who like Illusionist play are very good at establishing and abiding by their tolerable degree of Force, and Secrets of Gamemastering seems to bear that out as the perceived main issue of satisfactory role-playing per se.

Producing a story via Force Techniques means that play must shift fully to Simulationist play. "Story" becomes Explored Situation, the character "works" insofar as he or she fits in, and the player's enjoyment arises from contributing to that fitting-in. However, for the Narrativist player, the issue is not the Curtain at all, but the Force. Force-based Techniques are pure poison for Narrativist play and vice versa. The GM (or a person currently in that role) can provide substantial input, notably adversity and Weaving, but not specific protagonist decisions and actions; that is the very essence of deprotagonizing Narrativist play."

Answered above. Additionally, at a certain complexity threshold the role playing system is turned into a simulation, which you want to avoid in P&P, because then the system takes over the story in term of priority. The system should support the story, not the other way around.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Re: D&D started it all!

"We've used pen-and-paper role-playing to test out new computer game systems, as well as characters and area designs," says Chris. "Here at Obsidian, we role-played through the opening stages of Neverwinter Nights 2 to test the flow of the game. "It's like instant sounding-board feedback from players before you even build the area in the engine," Chris continues.

They spent five hours rolling dice and moving three feet forward to test the flow of a computer game where all of that happens in under 3 seconds? Righteo then.

 

[Fez]

Maybe they only ever played it in that format?

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Maybe they only ever played it in that format?

Haha, bet that's what Bethesda did too before they went about touting all that "you can play our game for hundreds of hours" crap.

 

[Human Shield]

1) Because the rules are static and my campaign, I, the players, the characters and the game world are not.

System is going to be static including the one you are using now of "the GM decides". Color is outside of system.

2) Because a certain rule doesn’t fit in and/or belong to my setting.
3) Because there wasn't a perfect rule system back when I played P&P (last time I played was 10 years ago), and there isn’t one now, and I don’t think there will ever be one.

Many systems are outside of setting.
There isn't a "perfect system" just the best option for what the group wants to do, deciding for them and preying on lack of experience is possible too.

I remember reading this , disagreed the first time I read it, and I disagree after reading it just now, anew.

Do you even keep a appearance of rules or is it all just your dictations? A GM that doesn't want to share power is going to fudge any system and so feels system doesn't matter.

Again "how the DM and the other characters..." not the players, the PCs and the NPCs through the DM.
And you can also add to underlined part things like: how the character history and personality are affecting on his decision, and visa versa, how the character action redefine the character.
The protagonist personal story is just as important as the story/plot.

Except it is just bullshit color, it makes no real statement addressing premise or creating theme. It is a bunch of people writing fan fiction that are all forced to follow your series of events (they get to add explanations to all reach the same point). You are simulating a movie, you aren't creating a story.

I guess history and personality are still not allowed to "ruin" a campaign?

"Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dyfunctional: it works well when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript ends up being a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so beyond accepting the GM's Techniques. I think that a shared "agreement to be deceived" is typically involved, i.e., the players agree not to look behind the Black Curtain. I suggest that people who like Illusionist play are very good at establishing and abiding by their tolerable degree of Force, and Secrets of Gamemastering seems to bear that out as the perceived main issue of satisfactory role-playing per se.

Producing a story via Force Techniques means that play must shift fully to Simulationist play. "Story" becomes Explored Situation, the character "works" insofar as he or she fits in, and the player's enjoyment arises from contributing to that fitting-in."

You are simulating a series of events, that is only one way to play a RPG. It is the most textually supported way but not the only or best way.

Handled correctly this shouldn’t be a problem.
A bad campaign/adventure is a bad campaign/adventure and "the system" cannot fix that.

System drives behavior in that campaign. A system that gives rewards for killing will more likely see players attacking things. A system that encourages dealing with moral questions will see players thinking about such things (not just putting in color like your system but making hard choices).

Removing player power can make a bad campaign if the players want some creative power and not be an audience. You kept using a system that focuses player creative power into killing things (D&D) and decided to remove all player power instead of funnel it into something else with a different system. This is good if you love your soap box and don't want others changing your "story" (which is akin to announcing disapproval and judging your work, which some don't like).

Answered above. Additionally, at a certain complexity threshold the role playing system is turned into a simulation, which you want to avoid in P&P, because then the system takes over the story in term of priority. The system should support the story, not the other way around.

You are using a different meaning of "story". A pure simulation can lead to a series of events that can be called a "story", this is different from addressing a premise and developing a theme.

Different groups have different priorities. A complex system that to them can produce the most "real" results which would be the best story to such a group.

 

[Koby]

I don’t really get it do you?

System is going to be static including the one you are using now of "the GM decides". Color is outside of system.

Simply not true.

Many systems are outside of setting.
There isn't a "perfect system" just the best option for what the group wants to do, deciding for them and preying on lack of experience is possible too.

No body if playing for them, 'you assume too much'.

Do you even keep a appearance of rules or is it all just your dictations? A GM that doesn't want to share power is going to fudge any system and so feels system doesn't matter.

Replace the "Do" with "Are". Is a joint decision, me AND the players!

Except it is just bullshit color, it makes no real statement addressing premise or creating theme. It is a bunch of people writing fan fiction that are all forced to follow your series of events (they get to add explanations to all reach the same point). You are simulating a movie, you aren't creating a story.

You really got stack on that part didn’t you? "deciding for them", "your dictations", "forced to follow", no body is forcing anyone to do anything, and I never said anything like that, it just your interpretation (which is wrong, if you still don’t get it).

I guess history and personality are still not allowed to "ruin" a campaign?

If a certain notion, for what ever reason, got stack in your mind, and you are all of sudden presented by something that is in complete contradiction to it, don’t blame me if doesn’t make any sense.

You are simulating a series of events, that is only one way to play a RPG. It is the most textually supported way but not the only or best way.

I'm not the one that decide how the even is resolved, but more important then that, i'm not the one how necessarily decide the *event sequence*.

System drives behavior in that campaign....

....

Are you getting my point now? (If not, read on)

.... A system that gives rewards for killing will more likely see players attacking things. A system that encourages dealing with moral questions will see players thinking about such things (not just putting in color like your system but making hard choices).

Which is a BAD thing!!!

I don’t want the system to decide what the players *should* do, the system shouldn't decide/reward/encourage shit, it up to DM and the players what is rewarded and what isn't, NOT THE SYSTEM!

The players *shouldn’t* be encouraged, period.

Removing player power can make a bad campaign if the players want some creative power and not be an audience.

Any system that encourage / reward anything *IS* "Removing player power" AND *hinders* players creativity.

P&P role-playing, especially in a fantasy setting, is about freedom (all kinds of them and yes, including but not limited to escapism). If the players should be encouraged at all, they should be encouraged to experiment, and have fun.

You kept using a system that focuses player creative power into killing things (D&D) and decided to remove all player power instead of funnel it into something else with a different system. This is good if you love your soap box and don't want others changing your "story" (which is akin to announcing disapproval and judging your work, which some don't like).

Repeated rhetoric, moving on.

You are using a different meaning of "story". A pure simulation can lead to a series of events that can be called a "story", this is different from addressing a premise and developing a theme.

Different groups have different priorities. A complex system that to them can produce the most "real" results which would be the best story to such a group.

It's not about role-playing correctness or system correctness, and it's sure not about "real" results. Now you are describing it like it’s a job, instead of a game.