Quote from: droogCan you supply some quoted rules that clearly define the scope of narration?

Well, having just recently been forced to sell all of my game collection save for D6 Star Wars, D6 Fantasy, BW: Revised, and Paladin I'm not sure I can provide a lot of direct citations. That said, my D6 Fantasy book is at hand, so I'll give it a go. . .

Quote from: D6 Fantasy"When your character tries doing something, the gamemaster decides on the required skill and difficulty based on the task's complexity. The gamemaster doesn't usually tell you the difficulty number you need to equal or beat to succeed. He often won't inform you which tasks are easier and which tasks are harder, though he might give you hints. The gamemaster then uses the rules to interpret the die roll and determine the results of the action.

This example assumes GM narration in the final sentence and all of the actual play examples throughout the book explicitly showcase it. I've found this to be the case in most games (i.e., most games explicitly present structure in regard to narration that paints the GM as the primary narrator of action outcomes).

Now, just to be clear. Even if you do happen to be right about games not stating "The GM narrates outcomes" in exactly those words, this doesn't change my point any. Games that don't explictly say the "The GM narrates outcomes" are still a far cry from games that do explicitly say "The player narrates their own outcomes".

The latter didn't start showing up until the mid-1990s (so far as I've seen). Again, I'm fairly certain that Theatrix was the first game that allowed players to specifically define the adventure environment (via "plot points"). That said, it did not provide rules allowing players to narrate their own action outcomes by default*.

* Plot points let them do this, but they worked to override the default assumption of GM narration, much as Dramatic Editing does in Adventure!.

Quote from: jdrakehRPGs traditionally did not imbue players other than the GM with specific authorial power. Games that do are, therefore, non-traditional.

Okay.  What's "specific authorial power" when it's at home, then?

I can say "Games that rely on negotiated fictional interface are traditional, and Burning Wheel relies on negotiated fictional interface, so it's traditional," but it wouldn't be so much argument as jargon.  So let's cut through your jargon, and get down to brass tacks, 'kay?

Thanks, Tony.  That was my first questions as well.

James - first, you say this:

Quote from: jdrakehI (surprisingly) agree with Pundit in that I think it's the degree of authorial control that many indie games grant players which differentiates them from the "traditional" GM/player paradigm games such as D&D, Rolemaster, etc.

Assuming your “authorial control” is the same as my Required Shared Narrative Control, I don’t disagree. I think it’s a major difference between “traditional” and “non-traditional” games.

However, you followed that statement, with this one:

Quote from: jdrakehIn these games, the players react to a story, they don't help create it.

This makes me think your control and my control are different.  As I mentioned, I don’t think players, even if they are limited in specifically narrating resolution results, are not taking part in the creation of the story simply by their very actions/decisions.

My second questions is whether or not when you say James you mean me.

EDIT: Added Link to where I think I fisrt used Required Shared Narrative Control.

Quote from: James J SkachMy second questions is whether or not when you say James you mean me.

I think we should all rename ourselves James. There are so many here already. I mean jdrakeh is a James too. If we were all named James, then things would be much smoother, I guarantee!

-clash

Quote from: jdrakeh[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".

Right, along the lines that James S. already posted, if this is what you mean by "authorial control", then it's something that's really only come into its own recently. Probably before Theatrix--based on John Kim's summary of the development of hero point mechanics, the Whimsy Cards of Ars Magica, dating from 1987, looks like it may have been the turning point.

But your argument depends entirely on defining "authorial control", and similar phrases about controlling the story, in terms of the specific mechanics you list above. In fact, players have always had a powerful resource for controlling the story without using those types of mechanics: their characters. GMs only prevent players from controlling the story through their characters if they choose to do so, based on social assumptions or possibly "guidelines" sections in rulebooks. Only where these assumptions or guidelines tell the GM to, essentially, nullify player control over "the story", do the players not control "the story".

In short you're correct to talk about the use of "player narration mechanics" as an innovation that's gradually gathered momentum since the late 80's or 90's. But it's a whole other issue whether those sorts of mechanics are required in order for players to be able to "control the story". Even many Forge games which claim to give players "authorial control" actually do so mainly by telling the GM not to railroad and to respect player intent for their PCs' actions. E.g. Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, etc.

Quote from: jdrakeh[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".]

Oh!  I completely missed this somehow.  My bad!

Okay ... so ... authorial power means the power to define the reality of the game world ... I'm presuming "in part" rather than "in whole"?

So ... say I'm playing a fighter, and I attack with my sword, and roll a critical hit and get maximum damage, and that's more than the hit points of the Ogre Mage I'm swinging at.  We're all down with that scenario?  That means the Ogre Mage is gonna die now, right?

Have I just defined the reality of the Ogre Mage's death, because I've taken the actions that cause it?  Or does the GM define that reality, because he perceives those actions and the numerical consequences, and then he acts as a gatekeeper between those facts (which we all know the implications of) and the actual narration of the outcome?

I'm also imagining a scenario where I say "My stakes in this combat are that if I win then the Ogre Mage is dead," the GM says "Right, I'm down with those stakes," and then I win the conflict, and the GM says "Right!  You won the conflict, and I don't feel like fudging the results, so I'm gonna narrate that the Ogre Mage is dead."  Now to me that sounds like the same deal, but I'm very open to the possibility that it sounds like a whole different deal to other people.  So if somebody wants to tell me the difference between the first example and the second, I suspect that would really help me see what the important distinctions are here, as seen by the other person.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm almost always a GM.  My reasons are that I usually have more fun being GM.

I know your stance on the separation of powers between GM and "player" and that you don't like distributing powers normally reserved for your role as GM.  Hell, you openly resent that sort of distribution.  I have to wonder, though -- would you enjoy being a player, not a GM, in a game that allowed you to assume some of the powers that you enjoy in your typical role as GM?  I know your dogmatic declaration on the issue, but can you envisage such a game that you would enjoy?  In other words, is it really the whole package of GM-ing that you enjoy, or just certain key aspects?

!i!

[Edit: I managed to miss this comment that pretty much answers my question:

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd rather rely on a game where the enjoyment depends on one guy, ostensibly the guy most suited to the job, not being a clueless dickhead; then the alternative, which is a game where the enjoyment depends on four, five, or six guys not being clueless dickheads because any one of them has the power to fuck up the entire game and no one has the authority to fix it or stop said dickhead.

However, I'd still be interested in your response to my specific question(s).  I'm still trying to wrap my head around you, and this might help me understand your vehemence regarding certain play styles.]

What about this scenario:

GM: The Ogre Mage starts casting a spell...
Player: I grit my teeth, say a quick prayer and charge in to attack him.
*Roll*
Player: 20!  Yes!
GM: You stab him -- right through the eye!  He falls to the ground in a twitching, bloody heap.
Player: Uh, whoa, whoa -- stab him in the eye?  Dude, there's no way my guy would do that.
GM: What are you talking about?
Player: I want my guy to be all noble and stuff -- stabbing in the eye sounds bunk.

Who gets authorial control here?  The GM?  The player?  Does the player have a veto?  Does the GM give control to the player, but have a veto?  What would be 'by the book' and would something else be more common (in your opinion)?

The player rolled the 20, and if there's no stipulation requiring a hit location roll, I'd side with the player's statement.  Yes, the GM gets a veto if the player's subsequent assertion gets out of hand.  I'm not sure if this is really a good example though, because, ultimately, the situation is effectively dictated by the roll of the dice (a critical hit causing X number of wounds) -- the descriptions by the GM and the player are just icing.

Perhaps the more telling situation would be a social contest.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia...the situation is effectively dictated by the roll of the dice (a critical hit causing X number of wounds) -- the descriptions by the GM and the player are just icing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there are a number of people, particularly of the Forge persuasion, who would beg to differ with you on this point.

It's just a guess...

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen I or anyone I know uses Diplomacy or Intimidation, it is the GM who interprets how the NPCs react to the player's successful (or unsuccessful) roll.

Hell, no where is that more significant than with intimidation. In some Forgey pseudo-rpg the player has the right to demand that, if he passes x roll, the brutal warriors he's confronting will run away screaming like little girls.

And no, wiseass, I'm not saying that a game with "any social mechanics at all" is not an RPG; I'm saying that games with pansy-assed Forge Theory social mechanics or "stakes-setting", or, in other words, all of YOUR FAVOURITE GAMES are not RPGs.

RPGPundit

Well, I guess Champions and the Hero system aren't roleplaying games anymore. Because if I get target EGO or PRE +30, then it's running away like little girls time.

Or for that matter a successful Initimidation skill roll in GURPS, which gives a "good" reaction which indicates "flight or surrender".

Or for that matter an Absolute Success in Rolemaster Standard System in the Influence skills category, which does the same thing ("You have the target(s) wrapped around your little finger"). Hey, I even get up to a +25 bonus if I "cause discomfort"

In each and everyone of those examples, the game system itself specifies the degree of the NPCs submission. In all cases cited it is faint, flight or total surrender.

So are Champions, GURPS and Rolemaster roleplaying games or not?

PS: I really must thank you one day for inciting me to post to webforums like this, rather than the old-fashioned mailing lists which I frequented.

Quote from: jdrakehActually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player.

Actually more to the point in most cases the game system itself, not the player or the GM, determined the outcome of the rolls (e.g., Hero system, GURPS, Rolemaster).

Quote from: lev_lafayetteWell, I guess Champions and the Hero system aren't roleplaying games anymore. Because if I get target EGO or PRE +30, then it's running away like little girls time.

Which direction? Towards the hideout, because that's where safety lies? Away from the hideout, so as not to lead the PCs to their compatriots? Home to mommy?

QuoteOr for that matter a successful Initimidation skill roll in GURPS, which gives a "good" reaction which indicates "flight or surrender".

Is it flight (see above for some options), or surrender?

QuoteOr for that matter an Absolute Success in Rolemaster Standard System in the Influence skills category, which does the same thing ("You have the target(s) wrapped around your little finger"). Hey, I even get up to a +25 bonus if I "cause discomfort"

In each and everyone of those examples, the game system itself specifies the degree of the NPCs submission. In all cases cited it is faint, flight or total surrender.

See above...

QuoteSo are Champions, GURPS and Rolemaster roleplaying games or not?

Quote from: lev_lafayette

QuoteOriginally Posted by jdrakeh
Actually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player.

Actually more to the point in most cases the game system itself, not the player or the GM, determined the outcome of the rolls (e.g., Hero system, GURPS, Rolemaster).

You're confusing "adjudicated" with "determined". jdrakeh means in traditional RPGs, it is the GM, and only the GM, who tells you what happens once the system determines the result of an action. (Adjudicate was perhaps not the best choice of words, but it seemed pretty easy to parse his meaning to me.) A couple of examples might help.

System: critical hit, decapitate foe.

"Your sword fliks through the goblins neck, his head popping into the air. It bounces off his right shoulder, drops to the ground, and gets backheeled by another goblin, who kicks it into the press behind him where it gets stepped on, unbalancing another goblin who falls, arm and legs flailing, knocking his companions about like so many tenpins."

"You feel a shock through your arm as you sword hits bone, and shears through it. The goblins head lolls to one side, hanging by skin. He falls towards you, blood spraying from severed arteries, covering your face, arms and armour with hot, sticky ichor."

How about:

"I show her the photograph of her children, yelling "If you don't do what I want, I'll do to them what I just did to your maid!"" (not all PCs are nice.)

System: intimidation roll, victim surrenders.

"Horror and fear on her face, she slumps to her knees, weeping "what do you want me to do?"

"Her eyes downcast, her shoulders slump in resignation. "What do you want me to do?" she whispers."

"Her eyes fierce, fists clenched so tight you can see blood dripping to the floor as her nails cut into her palms, a single tear slides glistens on her right cheek as she hisses through clenched teeth "what do you want me to do?""

The system may tell you the result, but the system doesn't narrate what that result means. In a traditional RPG, only the GM has that power. If a player is making the narrations above, it is clearly a non-traditional RPG. (Yes, I realize that you can have a non-traditional game with only the GM narrating, the point is that in a traditional game it is always the case.)

The point I was exploring by starting the thread was that coming up with answers to "what happens" like the examples above is something GMs enjoy, and enjoy the challenge of. Since in many non-traditional games players also get to do that, it seems to me reasonable to ask whether these non-traditional games are in some part meant to allow GMs to be players while still getting some of what they enjoy about GMing out of the game.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI know your stance on the separation of powers between GM and "player" and that you don't like distributing powers normally reserved for your role as GM.  Hell, you openly resent that sort of distribution.  I have to wonder, though -- would you enjoy being a player, not a GM, in a game that allowed you to assume some of the powers that you enjoy in your typical role as GM?  

No. If I do play, I want to play. I want the other guy to be the GM.

QuoteI know your dogmatic declaration on the issue, but can you envisage such a game that you would enjoy?  In other words, is it really the whole package of GM-ing that you enjoy, or just certain key aspects?

The whole package.

RPGPundit

Quote from: lev_lafayettePS: I really must thank you one day for inciting me to post to webforums like this, rather than the old-fashioned mailing lists which I frequented.

Given that you've come here from Trolling on my Blog because you were upset that I humiliated your idiotic ramblings in yet another blog, and you're obviously here only to cause trouble, I'm still strongly considering what to do with you.

RPGPundit