Quote from: David RChallenges, obstacles or dilemmas....I call them action. I doubt any kind of rpg can exist worth action

Regards,
David R

This.

Quote from: Kyle AaronRPG theory, and in plain English! Amazing.

You'll never start a cult that way.

I know. And it's not like I can rely on my charisma to make up for it!

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle for having good game sessions.

QuoteThat'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.

Except that you're already creating jargon by trying to pin down the definition of two plain English words. I suggest you begin work on a glossary right away.

Dilemmas: A subset of Complication wherein the PC (see PC) is effectively given two and only two choices (see Choices). Generally frowned upon for being Sucky (see Sucky).

Obstacles: Barriers placed by the GM (see GM) between the party and its goals (see Goals). Obstacles are thought by the Jimbobists to involve the use of dice, but the Grognards maintain that player skill is the defining factor. The Droogists are split on the matter, much argument having been expended on the crucial point of whether Obstacles can in fact be justified other than as a stalling device. (See http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/lotofcrapmultiplethreadwank.html).

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe BW game was very constructed, overly so. I don't think the game system needs to be run that way.

Indeed, I don't think the term "kicker" or "bang" appears in the BW rules at all. The closest you have is the Beliefs section, where a) the DM is encouraged to use a PCs' beliefs to get them involved in things, and to generally challenge them and b) the player is encouraged to bear that in mind when choosing Beliefs. I actually like doing it that way: if there's a specific box on the character sheet where you get to say "Here is an area where I would like you to challenge my character", then you essentially give the player to declare which part of their background they want to be important and tied in with the action of the game, and which part is just for colour.

Quote from: gleichmanOne of the dangers of Design in Play IMO is that without a firm grasp of character upfront, the player may be unable to come to a good understanding in play.

FWIW, that's not how I understand the definition of "Develop In Play". I consider myself to be a "Develop In Play" sort of guy, but I always have a firm grasp of my character when I'm coming into a game; specifically, I have a grip on the essentials of the character, whereas the specifics come out in play.

To give you an analogy: Develop At Start is like painting a detailed portrait of your character before game start, and then sticking to that. Develop In Play is more like starting out with a sketch, and then filling it out until you get a portrait just as detailed as the DAS character. Maybe the portrait will develop in unexpected directions, but you're not going to up and contradict the initial sketch outright.

To address the Paladin example in D&D, a Paladin is inherently a class which comes with a lot of baggage - any D&D player knows that (or at least should do). If I decided to play a Paladin in a D&D game, I'd be damn sure that, whatever direction I want to take the guy in, I want to play a Paladin. Like the guy in your example, I might not start out the gaming knowing precisely why the dude is a Paladin, but I'd certainly have at least a vague idea of what sort of code I was going for (assuming that the DM in question didn't have a specific "Paladin Order" imposing a particular code of ethics in the game).

QuoteThe example I'm thinking of (didn't play in it, this is from an online conversation) involved a DIP player's attempt to run a Paladin in D&D. As was typical with DIP, the player didn't seem to have a grasp on why the character was a Paladin or what the character even believed. When confronted with decisions during the course of play, the player had no chose but to decide their actions without the grounding necessary to how a paladin would view the decision.

This sounds like a player who is trying DIP but isn't actually very good at it. Personally, faced with such a decision, I find that I can quickly say "OK, what does my character think about this? Hmmm, right, let's proceed on that basis." Were I playing a Paladin, I'd think "OK, how does this compare to the code of honour my Paladin's adhering to/that the Paladin Order in this game espouses? Right. How does my character feel about this? Hmmm, that's different from what the Order would say. Is this big enough of a deal for my character to break step with his code? Not really. OK, here's what I'll do..." I can normally work through this sort of process very quickly.

On the other hand, if a player is the sort of person who, when asked "What does your character do about this?", tends to freeze unless you have established beforehand what their character thinks, then I'd say that they'd be better off Developing At Start, or at least doing enough development at the beginning to have a vague idea of how to proceed. (I suspect most DIP players actually do the latter - doing enough character prep to get a vague roadmap, and then working out the precise details in play.)

Quote from: WarthurThis sounds like a player who is trying DIP but isn't actually very good at it.

That was my conclusion as well. It didn't go over well with the person in question to say the least.

Also judging from my encounters online- my conclusion in general about DIP players

Quote from: WarthurOn the other hand, if a player is the sort of person who, when asked "What does your character do about this?", tends to freeze unless you have established beforehand what their character thinks, then I'd say that they'd be better off Developing At Start, or at least doing enough development at the beginning to have a vague idea of how to proceed. (I suspect most DIP players actually do the latter - doing enough character prep to get a vague roadmap, and then working out the precise details in play.)

It's not a problem if the player is given enough low-key play before the character is thrown into life-or-death decisions to get a feel for the character.  It's can be a big problem when the game starts in media res and the player is asked to make deep decisions for the character but hasn't worked out the character in that much depth yet.  In fact, I think that's a key argument for why starting games in media res can be a bad thing for some players or groups.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAnd the GM has to be careful about these surprises, they should be something that surprises and motivates the players, not simply fucks them. I mean, "rocks fall, you die!" is a surprise, but what are the players supposed to do about it? "You can save the busload of children, or your girlfriend!" is a dilemma, but a pretty boring one. It's much better to provide them with something they can really sink their teeth into.

How many times have I warned you about using my IP?