Quote from: John MorrowSo my point is that I think there is some justification for your concern but it doesn't have to go as badly was what you are describing.

It seems the control is of course counter to the original desire, thus a DIP would have to give up some of what they are seeking to fit inside my campaign to at least some degree. Most the DIP I've encountered online would be willing to do that.

So while I'd likely trust you on this point, I doubt I'd be anything other than nervious about others. That is perhaps a flaw in me due to bad experiences.

On the other hand, I don't screen for this when new players show up. For all I know I may already have one that's working fine but isn't so strongly DIP that I've noticed.

Quote from: gleichmanIt seems the control is of course counter to the original desire, thus a DIP would have to give up some of what they are seeking to fit inside my campaign to at least some degree. Most the DIP I've encountered online would be willing to do that.

For me, DIP isn't an issue of control.  It's simply a matter of not being able to predict how a character will behave until they are actually played, when I get to see how all of the components work together (or don't, at which point planned elements of the character's personality might be ejected from the concept or replaced with something that fits).  So I have no problem trying to make characters designed to fit and I've learned how to nudge them to keep them from breaking the game most of the time.

Quote from: gleichmanOn the other hand, I don't screen for this when new players show up. For all I know I may already have one that's working fine but isn't so strongly DIP that I've noticed.

As with all things, by putting a label on both ends, it creates a bit of an excluded middle situation where the reality can be a lot more blended.  I think that few people are so Develop In Play that they start the game with a totally blank slate and I suspect that few people are so Design At Start that their concept doesn't change at all in play.

Quote from: John MorrowAs with all things, by putting a label on both ends, it creates a bit of an excluded middle situation where the reality can be a lot more blended.  I think that few people are so Develop In Play that they start the game with a totally blank slate and I suspect that few people are so Design At Start that their concept doesn't change at all in play.

I would agree.

I'd also add that people are more extreme online than they on in reality no matter the subject specifics.

Quote from: gleichmanI would agree.

I'd also add that people are more extreme online than they on in reality no matter the subject specifics.

:verkill:

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't know where that nonsense of "it's not a roleplaying game if there's no combat" came up, droog. I'd never say that. Did anyone else? If they did, they'd be stupid.

It's a pervasive mindset. See the Poobutt's quote below.

Quote from: David RBut I'm struggling to get your point. I mean it really depends on the kind of game you want to play where combat may or may not be an aspect of it....or is there something else you're getting at ?

No, that's it.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhy the fuck would anyone ever want to play a game where they play slaves or teenage girls and don't actually do anything?!

You have made a mental leap from 'no combat' to 'do nothing' as if all there truly were to do in an RPG was fight.

Yes, nevertheless I find the obstacle/dilemma scheme useful. (I think those are Kyle's terms.) Broadly speaking, obstacles have solutions and are susceptible to tactical or strategic play. Dilemmas do not have solutions so much as resolutions; there's no absolutely "right" answer. Dilemmas are about defining goals rather than achieving them. The problem for me is that if it's just dilemmas which are completely impervious to tactical play, it seems highly artificial. Basically a game of this sort, carried beyond a certain point, fails a fundamental requirement of RPG-ness, namely a coherent, comprehensible continuity. The less you have of that, the more the game becomes, IMO, a disjointed series of "what would you do ifs?".

Quote from: droogYou have made a mental leap from 'no combat' to 'do nothing' as if all there truly were to do in an RPG was fight.

No, you're the one who took that mental leap, by assuming that in any RPG where there was combat you could do nothing BUT fight; and used this to try to argue that in order to appeal to non-tactical gamers you need to create RPGs that the average human being would find dull as shit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, nevertheless I find the obstacle/dilemma scheme useful. (I think those are Kyle's terms.)

I describe it as,

The GM provides challenges. Challenges are two types. Obstacles are things like traps and monsters and "your daughter was kidnapped by the evil overlord", overcome by the character's skills and the player's dice. Complications are things like "your daughter has fallen in love with the evil overlord's son," overcome by the player's imagination and brains.

Dilemmas are a common type of complication, but not all complications are dilemmas. In a dilemma, the GM will usually know the two basic responses the players could have; in a complication, the GM may have no idea what they'll do.

I prefer complications when I can because a railroad is still a railroad even if the players get to choose which of two tracks they want to go down. I like giving players the chance to forge their own path through the wilderness of adventure. Of course, some complications will naturally resolve themselves into dilemmas: "okay, so your daughter's in love with the evil overlord's son, if you whack the evil overlord you upset your daughter, if you don't then he does more evil, now you get to choose between love and duty." That's a bit heavy-handed for my taste, but is still better than "she got kidnapped."

On the other hand, sometimes you can't make it that complicated, I mean we only have a three hour session we don't want to spend the whole time debating stuff.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBroadly speaking, obstacles have solutions and are susceptible to tactical or strategic play. Dilemmas do not have solutions so much as resolutions; there's no absolutely "right" answer. Dilemmas are about defining goals rather than achieving them. The problem for me is that if it's just dilemmas which are completely impervious to tactical play, it seems highly artificial. Basically a game of this sort, carried beyond a certain point, fails a fundamental requirement of RPG-ness, namely a coherent, comprehensible continuity. The less you have of that, the more the game becomes, IMO, a disjointed series of "what would you do ifs?".

I agree with all this. Likewise with nothing but combats it's not a coherent, comprehensible continuity (I like the way you dodged using the word "story", Elliot, very neat! :cool: )

You need a balance. There should be dramatic moments of conflict - physical or not - but they should have some weight and reason behind them, otherwise just play a computer game, it does it better, resolves thigns quicker and with prettier pictures.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, you're the one who took that mental leap, by assuming that in any RPG where there was combat you could do nothing BUT fight; and used this to try to argue that in order to appeal to non-tactical gamers you need to create RPGs that the average human being would find dull as shit.

Try again, buddy.

If you redefine 'combat' to mean 'any conflict' it's fine with me; though I wonder if that's really what people mean. Anyway, of course you want something going on, and obviously hurling conflicts at the characters ought to achieve that. As usual, having a good GM helps.

If Dilemmas are presented with only two solutions, they're not what R. Edwards calls Bangs. When presenting a good Bang the GM should have no idea how the player is going to react. [ADD: The choice to walk away should be a real choice.]

And I'm not sure I buy the distinction between Complication and Dilemma, Obstacle and so forth. 'Your daughter has fallen in love with the evil overlord's son' could well be taken as a Dilemma or Obstacle. Or, indeed, as an Opportunity.

I didn't redefine "combat" as "any kind of conflict." But I find that players enjoy all kinds of conflict, and they enjoy the subset of "conflict" which is a physical conflict with another living being that we call "combat".

A "dilemma" is a clearly-defined pair of choices. The "di" means "two".

A complication in your character's life will often lead to two clearly-defined choices, each as bad or good as the other; but not always. So the "complications" are more or less, though not exactly, what Uncle Ronny calls "bangs". Close enough that he can't really try to claim a trademark on them, especially not if he confuses it with copyright.

You may not buy the distinction between complication and obstacle, but nonetheless it exists and is quite clear to players at a game table. When they meet an obstacle they look at their character sheet and reach for their dice, when they meet a complication they say, "fuck, now what?" and start thinking.

And "challenges are just opportunities in disguise" are the sort of HR horseshit I'd hoped not to hear from a gamer.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou may not buy the distinction between complication and obstacle, but nonetheless it exists and is quite clear to players at a game table. When they meet an obstacle they look at their character sheet and reach for their dice, when they meet a complication they say, "fuck, now what?" and start thinking.

Let's say I'm playing ye olde style D&D as propounded most notably by Prof. Calithena, and the party comes up against a trap that we cannot roll dice for but must think our way around? Is that an Obstacle or a Complication?

QuoteAnd "challenges are just opportunities in disguise" are the sort of HR horseshit I'd hoped not to hear from a gamer.

Concretely, then, my character chooses this opportunity to gain a tie to the evil overlord's family. Aha!

Challenges, obstacles or dilemmas....I call them action. I doubt any kind of rpg can exist worth action

Regards,
David R

I didn't mean to bring up dilemmas; in truth I hadn't even thought of their binary nature, but now that it's been pointed out, then yes, dilemmas tend to be crappy complications.

I still see a distinction between complications and obstacles. Complications call for defining goals while obstacles are things that stand in the way of a pre-defined goal.

That's a brilliant way to put it, Elliot.

Complications call for defining goals while obstacles are things that stand in the way of a pre-defined goal.

RPG theory, and in plain English! Amazing.