Quote from: GrimGentWhat would be wrong with "I want to talk this guy into giving up his heathen ways", even in the traditional context?

Nothing. In the traditional paradigm, though, it's still largely up to the GM whether that actually happens. The thing is that you're confusing attempting to do something with defining the terms of one's own success. These are two different things.

In DitV, a player actually lays out the terms of their success (this is what stakes are). This doesn't happen in traditional RPGs. In a traditional RPG, the player says that they'd like to attempt something and then, if successful, the GM describes the outcome however he sees fit (within the rule structure).

In a traditional RPG, a player doesn't get to tell the GM "This is what happens if I succeed" -- traditional RPGs don't imbue players with that kind of authorial control.

Quote from: droogI think it's truer to say that narrative authority is a big grey area in many games.

As they're played, perhaps. As they're written, I can't think of a single traditional game that specifically hands a large degree of authorial control to players via a written rule (small degrees in the form of hero points or whatnot, yes -- large degrees, no).

That's the difference that I'm talking about. Non-traditional games have lots of written rules dedicated to awarding large degrees of authorial control to players. Traditional RPGs do not.

Quote from: jdrakehThis is the kind of clueless dickheadery that I was talking about. The odds of either of these things happening are just as great as the odds of a given GM placing his own enjoyment above that of the other players at all costs.

In practical terms, you might be right. However, most GMs that pull this kind of shit don't stay GMs long, or they get better at it. Players get better at it too, but not if they're mollycoddled by absurd rules that actually encourage them to be primma donnas.

Also, on a purely pragmatic level, I'm usually a GM. I know that I'm a good GM, and that I don't pull the kind of shit that some GMs do. And when I do play, I simply don't stay in any group that has a GM that does this kind of shit.

Its far better odds that any single GM will be decent at his job than that not even one out of four-to-six players will be a primma donna or a fucktard.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jdrakehIn a traditional RPG, the player says that they'd like to attempt something and then, if successful, the GM describes the outcome however he sees fit.

Yes, he does. But if the PC explicitly tries to talk someone into giving up his heathen ways and succeeds, then by all logic that is what will happen and what the GM must describe; otherwise, it isn't a success at all, and the mechanics of the game are rendered meaningless. Any additional complications (say, extraordinary devotion to those old beliefs or resentment towards the PC) should adjust the difficulty of the attempt, not negate the consequences.

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... James ... entirely up to the GM?

Like, I can use my Intimidate skill on a guy, and get a spectacular success, and the GM can say "And the result is that he develops chitinous armor"?  Or even "And the result is that he holds you in contempt and shoos you away"?

I'm pretty sure (though maybe we're further apart in opinion than I thought) that the GM gets to make decisions within a framework set out by the rules.  The rules say "Given this result, the guy is Intimidated ... work with that."

I totally get that there's a difference between the GM having to deal with certain very specific constraints that are established in the rules ahead of time, as opposed to having to deal with constraints that the players hand him on the spot ... but the GM's narration is constrained in either case, isn't it?

There is a huge, and blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't being intentionally difficult, difference between "the player succeeds his intimidation check so he gets to decide that the megawarrior drops his weapons at the PC's feet and promises to serve him as a loyal slave for life", and "the player succeeds at the intimidation check, so now the GM can pick whatever effect he feels is most appropriate for what this means the megawarrior's reaction will be; anything from surrender, to full on rout, to cautious retreat, to fighting on but shaken with a penalty, to slightly unnerved but used to these situations and able to fight on without penalty".

Are you really willing to be so dense in your ideological stance that you're unwilling to admit the obvious fucking difference between those two possibilities?

RPGPundit

How frustrating you are, James.  You get me disagreeing on one thing only to agree with you on another.

Quote from: jdrakehIn many games that utilize the traditional paradigm, the story is already spelled out before actual play begins (D&D's adventure modules are, perhaps, the definitive example of pre-scripted stories).
PCs feel their way through the story though, ultimately, the only action that they can take which keeps the adventure from progressing as written is dying before they can complete it.

Free will is, in many games that adhere to the traditional paradigm, an illusion. Players can take actions, though events will progress as the module/adventure dictates, not as the players do.

That depends on the GM and the group, not necessarily on the system.  As an example I've used in other threads here, years ago I had a GM that essentially created a world and let us roam it – finding adventure where we wanted. I've also played in one of the RPGA's "Living" campaigns where the adventures were fairly tightly focused and options were limited.  Amazingly enough, these two polar opposites were with one rule system – D&D. Now you might try to use the "well I didn't say all, I said many," defense, but that's just a ruse. The fact is you're wrong in your underlying assumption.  Traditional rule systems were as wide open or as tightly focused as the GM/players wanted them to be.

Quote from: jdrakehThe players have no real say in how thw world develops, or how NPCs act or react to their actions -- they can't do much to change the pre-scripted plot. Players are actors, not authors.

Man, you must have had horrible GM's.

In the old game I used to play in, years ago, when we wandered a created world finding adventure, my character kept a journal.  Now, it wasn't perfect, and I attempted to capture as much information as I could.  If I take that journal and weave it into a more polished product, am I the author, or the GM? Who authored my character's actions, the GM or me?

Hell, who is the author if I write my autobiography?  I mean, I didn't write this world, I'm just moving around it trying to do the best I can. Do I get to complain about being railroaded? If so, can you provide a phone number or e-mail address?

Quote from: jdrakehNow, that said, this isn't necessarily true -- but it is how most traditional games are set up to operate by default.

It's a nice try at a cop-out, but in the end you let your true assertion slip - and it's still wrong.  "Traditional" games are not set up to operate (in this manner) by default. They are, as I said before, as wide open or as tightly focused as the group desires. At least the "traditional" games with which I am most familiar.

And now, the part with which I agree...almost.

Quote from: jdrakehI don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. In the DitV example above, for instance, you have the player specifically defining what happens when he's successful. In traditional games, the player doesn't get to do this. At all. He says "I want to try and influence this guy" not "If successful, I influence this guy and he's not only impressed, he gives up his heathen ways!" -- in the traditional game, that is entirely up to the GM (within the structure of the rules)

Bolded part my addition in line with others' critiques...

Quote from: RPGPunditAre you really willing to be so dense in your ideological stance that you're unwilling to admit the obvious fucking difference between those two possibilities?

There is, indeed, a clear difference between the two examples you give.

Now ... which games are you saying allow people to name the "megawarrior serves me for life" stakes?  'cuz I don't think any of the games I mentioned as having a traditional GM-player relatonship allow that sort of thing, so I'm sort of struggling to see what the relevance is.

Quote from: jdrakehNothing. In the traditional paradigm, though, it's still largely up to the GM whether that actually happens. The thing is that you're confusing attempting to do something with defining the terms of one's own success. These are two different things.

In DitV, a player actually lays out the terms of their success (this is what stakes are). This doesn't happen in traditional RPGs. In a traditional RPG, the player says that they'd like to attempt something and then, if successful, the GM describes the outcome however he sees fit (within the rule structure).

In a traditional RPG, a player doesn't get to tell the GM "This is what happens if I succeed" -- traditional RPGs don't imbue players with that kind of authorial control.

What I'm saying is that in many cases (and I haven't done an empirical study) that area is fairly blank. It's not clear who does the narrating, or when.

In my GMing, and in my game advice, I let the player have input into the results, so long as it's appropriate to what is rolled. From In Harm's Way:

Descriptions of Success or Failure
The players should describe what they are attempting to do with a success or failure, whether in combat or noncombat. The GM interprets the degree of success/damage roll according to what was attempted
For example:
Paula: "A 38! That's a hit! I thrust the cutlass into the sailor's belly and rip up!"
Paula:"I roll for damage - a 52, plus 20 from my initiative, +20 for the cutlass, makes 92 total."
GM: "Ahhh - the sailor shudders and jerks away from you, twisting toward Yves. A spatter of blood rains down underneath him. Yves? You are next."
Yves: "I swack him away from me with the butt of my musket. Umm - drat! That's a 74! A miss! I needed a 65 or less!"
GM: "Your blow hits the boom and glances off, deflecting the force into thin air."


-clash

Quote from: jdrakehTraditional games do not imbue players other than the GM with narrative authority. In such games, that authority is solely the domain of the GM, per the rules. You're going out of your way to avoid discussing and/or acknowledging this, but there it is.

Are plot points anti-traditional, then?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAre plot points anti-traditional, then?

Do you mean plot-points as in points that players can spend to assert authorial control, or are using the term in the literary sense?

To the rest of the respondents, the point was (and I assert nobody has proven otherwise) that traditionally, RPGs didn't imbue players other than the GM with specific authorial power by way of the rules. Tony set up a strawman trying to shift the focus of the thread to the fact that all RPGs have structure (which the other James sadly swallowed hook, line and sinker). But. . .

That's not the point that this thread turns on. Yes, all games provide structure. Duh. That's a requirement of games (RPGs or otherwise). We're talking about things that games do differently, not things that they do the same. RPGs traditionally did not imbue players other than the GM with specific authorial power. Games that do are, therefore, non-traditional.

This is a fairly recent development in design (I think that Theatrix may have done it first) and one that noted non-traditional games (e.g., Maelstrom Storytelling, The Pool, Donjon) have capitalized on. Now, that said, this concept changed the whole spectrum of games in its wake. . . today, traditional RPGs (e.g., d20 Modern, Iron Heroes, Adventure!, etc) have incorporated some tiny degree of player authorial power.

The key word there is tiny. Precious few traditional RPGs contain written rules allowing players to define the outcome of their own actions or define the physics of the world in which their characters are adventuring. Now, that said. . .

Sometimes this kind of cooperative play is imposed on a traditional game system by way of group fiat (this is what the other James is talking about), but by and large it is only supported by written rules in non-traditional games. Newer games, notably. Games breaking away from the past.

We'll settle this quickly. . .

All of those who say that traditional RPGs grant a large degree of authorial control to players by design -- show me the written rules that prove your claim. I'll wager that you can't. What will I wager?

If one of you doubters can produce a list of ten role playing games published before 1990 and cite, within those games, verifiable, specific rules that grant a large degree of authorial control to players other than the GM by design -- I'll eat my hat. Literally. In front of the world.

I will cut up my leather box-top cowboy hat, have my budy sautee it with onions and mushrooms -- and I will eat it. I will, further, present the preparation, cooking, and eating as a series of MPEG videos. I will post these videos both here, at my web site, and at YouTube for your viewing pleasure. This is your chance, folks. . .

Make me eat my fucking hat!

[Note: For the purposes of this wager the term "authorial control" means "the power to specifically define the reality of the game world and/or overrule the GM where such definition is concerned", the term "specific" means "explicitly set forth", the term "large degree" means "a measure significant enough to radically change the direction of actual play", and the term "by design" means "intentionally". Finally, the term "verifiable" shall mean "possible for third parties to verify using the cited source".]

Quote from: droogWhat I'm saying is that in many cases (and I haven't done an empirical study) that area is fairly blank. It's not clear who does the narrating, or when.

And what I'm saying is that it's not.

Many groups may treat authorial control this way, but there usually are rules that specifically define the GM as the final adjudicator of die roll outcomes in traditional games. Conversely, in non-traditional RPGs there are usually rules that specifically present rules allowing players other than the GM to narrate roll outcomes.

I'm well aware that many (in fact, I'd say most) groups ignore these rules and simply do what feels right for them (I've been doing it since the AD&D years), but again -- that's not what this thread is about. It's not about playstyles. it's about written rules (and not about the fact that rules, in general, exist -- but what specific rules exist where).

At any rate, see my above post.

Quote from: jdrakehDo you mean plot-points as in points that players can spend to assert authorial control, or are using the term in the literary sense?

The first, though in many games (Buffy, say) the "auhorial control" remains at the discretion of, but does not necessitate, GM intervention.

And that's where we hit the sticking point.  Tradition has it that the GM has, should they wish it, absolute authority.  I don't question that; it's obvious on the face of it.

But the question remains whether players can be given the capacity to exert authorship, and in what ways and to what degrees, before it starts to hit the barriers of most traditional play.  Now, I'm not the slightest bit interested in the semantics or principles of this.  Just the realities, as they occur in play.

Quote from: jdrakehAnd what I'm saying is that it's not.

Can you supply some quoted rules that clearly define the scope of narration?

I'm assuming that unless powers are specifically removed, people will tend to use them. I think we're agreeing that in practice the barriers are in fact more fluid than often assumed.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut the question remains whether players can be given the capacity to exert authorship, and in what ways and to what degrees, before it starts to hit the barriers of most traditional play.  Now, I'm not the slightest bit interested in the semantics or principles of this.  Just the realities, as they occur in play.

What happens in actual play differs vastly from what appears in most rule books, I've found. As I mention above, there is no doubt that certain groups work outside of the written rules to bestow authorial control upon players in games that don't make allowances for such player empowerment by design. The thing to remember is that we're discussing games in this thead, not styles of play.

If a game doesn't facilitate somethign by design, I submit that once a group makes such a modification they're no longer playing the game as written, rather, they're imposing non-traditional rules on the existing structure specifically by stepping outside of that framework as it is presented in the rules as written. In this instance, the actual game hasn't changed any. It still doesn't grant players authorial control What has changed is the way in which the group has chosen to play the game.

I guess what needs to happen here is that people need to decide what they want to talk about. Do they want to talk about games, or do they want to talk about how people play them. If you want to talk about the games themselves, it's the subject is easy to address on point -- traditionally, RPGs do not include specifica rules that invest authorial control upon players other than the GM. If you want to talk about atyles of play, the issue becomes less easy to resovle. Why?

Because, if you're not talking about the games, but about the way people play the games, you're not dealign with a definitive set of written rules very plainly laid out in black and white. You'rte dealign with thousands of indvidiual play groups and millions of house rules specifically designed to make a game function in a manner other than the manner it functions in by design.

Tony, James, and Droog have now made three variations on the argument that players who impose their own house rules on a traditional game (in order to make it function in a manner other than that which it was designed to function) are still playing a traditional game. And I'm saying that the argument has little merit or place within the original context of this thread.

For starters, this argument isn't about games -- it's about play styles. It completely ignores the fact that the game was designed to fucntion in a manner other than that in which the theoretical play groups are using it. This alone is a prolific topic shift. Now we're not comparing games (i.e., physical products) but the way in which people use them.

Secondly, it ignores that fact that modifying something to be used in a manner other than the manner that it was originally designed to be used changes that thing. It's no longer what it was. If you modify a bicycle to turn kinetic energy into electric energy, then it's no longer a bicylce -- it's a power generator. Likewise, if you alter a traditonal RPG to function like a non-traditional RPG in regard to the dispersion of authorial control, then it becomes a non-traditional RPG.

You can inject player authorial control into AD&D  (I know, 'cause I've done it), but then you're no longer playing AD&D as written -- you're playing a house-ruled variant that differs greatly from the default rule structure as written, specifically in an effort to make the game behave more like recently released games that espouse different structures entirely. That said, as the game itself doesn't include rules fro such a thing, this is still a matter of after-market modification (and, thus, play style -- not design).