The purpose of this short article is to describe some of the distinguishing characteristics of a playstyle that might be deemed a 'playerocracy'.

It is not my intention to suggest this is some One True Way of playing RPGs; I'm only describing one of the ways that some groups operate.

I suspect some games have been designed under the assumption that the participants will have this sort of group dynamic; describing the group may help some people with differing approaches better understand some of the game design decisions.


A Few Definitions

1.  Participants: the players and GMs of a game.

I include this mostly because some people take 'players' to include the GM, some don't, and it's not really worth arguing about, so I'm just going to call the lot of them 'participants.'


2.  Fun: the experience which the participants seek for its own sake.

I'm taking a page from Aristotle here, who defined happiness as the only emotion that humans desire for its own sake.

Incidentally, I'm sweeping all the GNS stuff under the rug with this, which is mostly intentional.


A Few Out-of-Game Agreements


3.  The participants agree not to act selfishly, cruelly, or generally like jerks for the duration of play.  They agree on what is acceptable and what is not.

Note that there's no requirement for the participants to be so wholesome every second of their lives, nor is their any need to make sweeping statements about the basic nature of humanity as a whole.

It also does not necessarily preclude characters who are non-stop jerks.


4.  The participants share a collective vision of the genres, themes, and settings to be explored.

Most of the popular RPGs have excelled at bringing their players to a shared collective vision of the game itself: D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Amber, and many more.

It is traditional for the GM to be the main steward and arbitrator of the collective vision.  Some games offer alternate approaches.  It's not really relevant to this discussion; either can work well.


A Few In-Game Processes


5.  Out-of-game conflicts are best resolved out-of-game; how to resolve them is beyond the scope of this article.  In-game conflicts are best resolved in-game, with the game system.

Nothing terribly groundbreaking here, I would suggest.  However, it does lead us fairly directly into:


6.  Say yes or roll dice.

Or, less tersely, "If there's an in-game conflict, resolve it with the game system.  If there's no conflict, stop conflicting.  If it's an out-of-game conflict, resolve it with something other than the game system."


A Couple of Examples


So, to get to everyone's favourite example, what happens when a player tells the GM he finds a 50 megaton nuclear warhead in the dragon's horde?

That's exactly the question:  what is happening?  It's likely one of the following:

A.  The player is a chronic jerk.  This is an out-of-game problem, and it's not useful to try to resolve it with in-game systems.

B.  The player is momentarily lapsing into jerkiness.  This is also an out-of-game problem, but it's not usually as severe.

When a GM says, "No, you don't find a nuclear warhead," this encourages everyone to try being a jerk.  The GM is protecting them from any consequences of being a jerk.  Using an in-game system to try to resolve this sort of out-of-game issue is counter-productive.

When a GM says, "Alright, you find a nuclear warhead," the players realize that their behaviours have real consequences.  Most of the time, the momentary-jerk will withdraw or nullify their comment, and they generally quickly learn to turn their energies to something more productive.  If they don't, they are rapidly approaching chronic jerk status.

C. The player has an authentic difference of opinion about setting.

Due to inconsistencies in the collective vision of the game between the participants, these sorts of things can happen.  It's not terribly unusual -- an early D&D module introduced robots and laser pistols, after all.

Differences of opinion between the participants about their collective vision of the game is usually an out-of-game issue, although some games bring the issue into the mechanics.


For a different example, what happens when a player tells the GM he walks into the murder scene, identifies the killer, and shoots him through the heart?

The three possibilities above still hold.  There is another, which is somewhat related to C:

D.  The player is getting to the fun.

This may simply be the player's way of saying "Look, there's no fun in spending the next four hours looking under sofas for clues.  Let's skip all that and get to the fun."

This is essentially a difference of opinion about the shared collective vision among the participants of the game.  As before, it's typically an out-of-game issue.




And that's it.



Cheers,
Roger

Is this Roger Carbol?

Replied to via PM.

Quote from: Roger;223554Nothing terribly groundbreaking here, I would suggest.

I would say this is true for the entire "article." I'm afraid I've rather missed the point of this, because it appears to me to be a basic restatement of how roleplaying actually works, with the added confusion of not being very well worded and often contradictory to reason.

Quote from: Roger;2235546. Say yes or roll dice.

Or, less tersely, "If there's an in-game conflict, resolve it with the game system. If there's no conflict, stop conflicting. If it's an out-of-game conflict, resolve it with something other than the game system."


A Couple of Examples


So, to get to everyone's favourite example, what happens when a player tells the GM he finds a 50 megaton nuclear warhead in the dragon's horde?

I was with you until you got to this point.

Roleplaying games usually don't have players telling the GM what their character finds in the game world.  The player narrates their character and actions, the GM narrates the game world and the actions of all the supporting cast (Monsters, NPCs).  Many games have pre-existing game worlds and items based on a map / location key, so neither the players or the GM is arbitrarily adding items to the game world.

It's a specific type of game (eg. often referred to as Storygames) that have players introduce narration for the game world itself and add locations and items as they see fit.

Which makes your article less about a Playerocracy in general, and more about a Playerocracy within a specific type of game -- which it would be a good idea to outline more clearly at the beginning of the article.

Thanks for your comments, Engine.  If you have anything more specific, I'd be happy to hear it.


Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Stuart;223768Roleplaying games usually don't have players telling the GM what their character finds in the game world.  The player narrates their character and actions, the GM narrates the game world and the actions of all the supporting cast (Monsters, NPCs).

I think this is a common misconception.  In my opinion, this happens all the time in all sorts of traditional RPGs.

A couple examples:

* "My character was raised by a kindly old hedge wizard who got himself killed by orcs."  It's not unusual to see something like this in character generation or character backstory.

* "My character finds a tavern and buys an ale."  This also happens all the time, and it's a clear reliance on the shared collective vision.  Of course there's a tavern in the village.  Of course he can buy an ale.

* "My greatsword cleaves the orc in twain."  Narration of damage effects sometimes falls on the GM's side of the screen, sometimes on the player's.  I'd suggest it's certainly not unusual for the player to do the narration.

For the purposes of illustration, I've pushed it to an extreme with "I find a nuclear weapon" and "I find the killer", but these are just differences in details.

As an aside, I'd also suggest that the differences between "I go to the tavern" and "If there's a tavern here, I go to it" and "Is there a tavern here?" are essentially cosmetic.  They all have the same function.

Thanks for your comments on this.


Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Roger;223796For the purposes of illustration, I've pushed it to an extreme with "I find a nuclear weapon" and "I find the killer", but these are just differences in details.

Not a difference of detail, but one of degrees.  Two specific degrees, to make a point:

1) They empower the character without added investment, counterbalance, or challenge of any kind.  Which is antithetical to many kinds of player enjoyment.

2) They would 'break' the vision of many players at the table, which is equally disrespectful to a source of loads of player enjoyment.

Players invent setting details constantly, yes.  But which details they can invent is a big deal.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;223800Players invent setting details constantly, yes.  But which details they can invent is a big deal.

I agree entirely.  It is a big deal.

But, importantly, it's an out-of-game deal, for most games.

As an out-of-game issue, the most effective solutions are also out-of-game.


Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Roger;223803I agree entirely.  It is a big deal.

But, importantly, it's an out-of-game deal, for most games.

As an out-of-game issue, the most effective solutions are also out-of-game.

Yes?  No?

Mostly yes.  But only mostly.  Many games have social guidelines that are also treated like "rules" - like, say, many parts of having a GM.

Still, mostly yes.  Trying to fix such stuff with in-fiction rewards and punishments is a muck's game.

Quote from: Roger;223796I think this is a common misconception.  In my opinion, this happens all the time in all sorts of traditional RPGs.

A couple examples:*snip*

I think that those are misconceptions.  Traditionally, they would each pass through the standard channels (iiee) for approval by the GM.  Just because a lot of GMs are lax with what they allow for backstories, introduction of (supposed) meaningless and in-genre content, and the introduction of after-the-fact narration doesn't mean that players are telling the GM what happens in traditional games.

Quote from: Roger;223796I think this is a common misconception.

I don't. :shrug:

Quote from: Roger;223796* "My character was raised by a kindly old hedge wizard who got himself killed by orcs."  It's not unusual to see something like this in character generation or character backstory.

This is created before the game begins.  It's also a de facto request to the GM for approval.  "Can I have my character's background be X?"  For example in many games if you were to say "My character was raised by a kindly old bear who taught him ninjitsu." The GM might say "no, that's not going to work for this game setting/world".  Unless the group was playing TMNT... then he'd probably say yes.

Quote from: Roger;223796* "My character finds a tavern and buys an ale."  This also happens all the time, and it's a clear reliance on the shared collective vision.  Of course there's a tavern in the village.  Of course he can buy an ale.

This is just a shortened version of "My character looks for a tavern, and if he finds one he goes inside and buys an ale."  If for whatever reason there is no tavern in the village, or if it's boarded up due to mysterious circumstances, the GM will tell the play "No".  In most RPGs the player could not veto the GM's control of the game world to have their be a tavern in which they were buying an ale anyway.

Quote from: Roger;223796* "My greatsword cleaves the orc in twain."  Narration of damage effects sometimes falls on the GM's side of the screen, sometimes on the player's.  I'd suggest it's certainly not unusual for the player to do the narration.

And again, a shortened version of "Can my character's greatsword cleave the orc in twain?"  The GM might have a reason to say "no" based on elements of the game word the player is unfamiliar with (eg.  No, you don't cleave the Dragon-Man in twain!  As you dispatch him he turns to stone, trapping your blade...) Contrast that with the definitive narration of the GM.  "Your greatsword cleaves the orc in twain".  

Quote from: Roger;223796As an aside, I'd also suggest that the differences between "I go to the tavern" and "If there's a tavern here, I go to it" and "Is there a tavern here?" are essentially cosmetic.  They all have the same function.

I disagree -- at least in the way you're presenting it.  

I go to the Tavern and buy an ale -- is different in a Storytelling game of the "always say yes" variety than it is in a more traditional Roleplaying game.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;223806Many games have social guidelines that are also treated like "rules" - like, say, many parts of having a GM.

I think we might be tripping on terminology here (but I'm impressed we made it this far.)

By "in-game" I mean within the shared fiction of the game play -- what Levi and I might both call within the SIS.

Rules like "show up on time" are "in the game text", sure, but they're not "in-game" rules, if you see what I mean.

Whether or not out-of-game advice has any place in a game text is a discussion for another thread, but it might be a worthwhile exploration.



Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: KingSpoom;223831Traditionally, they would each pass through the standard channels (iiee) for approval by the GM.

Interesting; I'd call that (still) very avant-garde -- the use of IIEE for establishing in-game elements like whether there is a tavern in the village or not.

Traditional or not, the playerocracy is all over using IIEE for these purposes.  It's the entire "or roll dice" part.



Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Roger;223870IIEE

:stick:

Jargon!