TheRPGSite

I'm a bit of an eclectic, which means I seem some value in some of what the forge has been up to, though I'll admit some of the attitude and vocabulary choices are more than a little offputting. That said, allow me to present a situation in which I think Forge type games might prove useful.  

Since dividing the RPG playing population up is a popular pastime, I'll get in on it and point out that among the many ways to do this, there is the rather basic one consisting of two types, GMs and Players.

Imagine the following situation:

You are hanging out with some roleplaying friends, and someone suggests a game. Everyone's up for the idea, so you ask "who wants to GM?" Everyone looks around for a couple of seconds, and then, to everyone elses relief, someone volunteers. The GM suggests CoC, and you're off and running.

Now imagine the same situation, only this time when you ask "who wants to GM?", everyone raises their hand.

Now me, I was never much for playing, I've always preferred GMing. Doing the design work and thinking on my feet, reacting to what the players do, is where the fun is for me. Being a player is frustrating; I have to hold back any ideas I may have about the plot, setting, NPCs, and so forth, because I'm not running the game. Try and get five people like me to play a traditional game, and things probably won't go so well.

Many of the Forge games are all about spreading GM-like powers throughout the group, which seems ideal if you have a group made up of lots of GMs.

So when everyone raises their hand in the second scenario, a suggestion like Universalis might well be the ticket to fun. Everyone can add to the setting, NPCs and plot, everyone can play off each other, and a group of GMs can have fun "Roleplaying" without players.

It shouldn't be that difficult to test the hypothesis. Do a survey at Wizards, and another at the Forge, asking about preferences with regards to playing or GMing traditional games, and if you find significantly more (proportionally) GMs at the Forge, the conclusion that Forge games are designed for groups of GMs to play together, rather than traditional groups made up of one GM and some players, could be justified.

Thoughts?

Crap. I meant to post this is theory. I'll put a note in the Help Desk, if someone who can move it sees it here first, could you please move it to theory?

Actually, I think it's safer to say that the Forge games (well, many of them, anyhow) appeal to theorists -- be they GMs or players. For the causal gamer (per Laws) who just wants to get the play out and have some fun, what theorists like about many games of Forge origin can immediately become obstacles.

Most Forgite games that I'm aware of have a few things in common. The game is usually pretty short and they have some new-fangled resolution mechanism (or mechanisms for stuff where there wasn't one before).

Not much time involved. No real craft. It's modern "art" all over again. You basically got rules lawyers who want to do it quickly. Rather shit on a tampon than mix tempera.

Quote from: apparition13Thoughts?

One thing to be aware of:  There is a pretty significant disjoint between people who have the skills to be a solo GM and people who have the desire to be a solo GM.

I, for one, made a game with distributed GM roles precisely so that I could get to play a lot more, without (a) feeling guilty that I wasn't GMing and/or (b) chafing at things that the GM was doing that I would do differently, if I had the authority.  With distributed GMing, I get to have the authority when I need it, but back off and let other people run things when I feel like it.

So if you're in a surveying mood, I'd be interested to see the answers to both the question of "Do you prefer to GM or play?" and "Do your fellow players ask you to GM often?" or something similar.

Quote from: TonyLBOne thing to be aware of:  There is a pretty significant disjoint between people who have the skills to be a solo GM and people who have the desire to be a solo GM.

I'm not so much interested in the GMing skills of RPers as their preferences. I suspect poor GMs with players who were more skilled at GMing may be the source of some of the frustration with traditional games, and some of the desire to write rules that minimize the delitorious effects of poor GMs, expressed at the forge.

QuoteI, for one, made a game with distributed GM roles precisely so that I could get to play a lot more, without (a) feeling guilty that I wasn't GMing and/or (b) chafing at things that the GM was doing that I would do differently, if I had the authority.  With distributed GMing, I get to have the authority when I need it, but back off and let other people run things when I feel like it.

That fits with my hypothesis. How common a design goal would you estimate this is?

QuoteSo if you're in a surveying mood, I'd be interested to see the answers to both the question of "Do you prefer to GM or play?" and "Do your fellow players ask you to GM often?" or something similar.

Do you have a "seat of the pants" feel for what the answer would be, at least from forgites?

I thought about attaching a simple poll, but decided against it. I'd like to get more feedback before trying to formulate something, although the limit of 10 items makes it somewhat problematic to do here in any case.

Anyone know of a poll-hosting site, or some such thing?

Quote from: apparition13Do you have a "seat of the pants" feel for what the answer would be, at least from forgites?

God, I really have no idea.  You'd have to ask people.  I can pretty much only answer for myself, and even then the answer is ... a simplified version of the complex threads that actually came together (intentionally and accidentally) in design.

Quote from: TonyLBGod, I really have no idea.  You'd have to ask people.  I can pretty much only answer for myself, and even then the answer is ... a simplified version of the complex threads that actually came together (intentionally and accidentally) in design.

Well, that's kind of the point of this thread, put the idea out there and see how people respond. Point 'em in this direction.

From my experience: I ran this Dogs campaign, and it was noted that 3 of the 4 players were experienced GMs (and of an interesting distribution: friends T, C and R most frequently loved & GM'd D&D, White Wolf and homebrewed-LARPs, respectively...). Their opinion was also that having those GM skills from other games gave them necessary skills for playing DitV. I myself disagreed, but I can see where they're coming from.

I personally like rules that make it easier for me to run things; as a player, I like having enough creative room to play in, but doesn't mean I need overly decentralized authority or stuff like that. (For reference, my cool DM running straight-up C&C worked IME.)

Quote from: DevPFrom my experience: I ran this Dogs campaign, and it was noted that 3 of the 4 players were experienced GMs (and of an interesting distribution: friends T, C and R most frequently loved & GM'd D&D, White Wolf and homebrewed-LARPs, respectively...). Their opinion was also that having those GM skills from other games gave them necessary skills for playing DitV. I myself disagreed, but I can see where they're coming from.

How did the non-GM player do? Did you get any feedback from that player as well?

QuoteI personally like rules that make it easier for me to run things; as a player, I like having enough creative room to play in, but doesn't mean I need overly decentralized authority or stuff like that. (For reference, my cool DM running straight-up C&C worked IME.)

Given the choice between a straight up trad game and one with more decentralized authority, all else being equal, which would you prefer to play in?

Quote from: apparition13How did the non-GM player do? Did you get any feedback from that player as well?

In fact, that player had a harder time with some of those improvisational parts. I'm not sure if that was due to the nature of the system or just the player's preferences.

QuoteGiven the choice between a straight up trad game and one with more decentralized authority, all else being equal, which would you prefer to play in?

I'd prefer the more decentralized one (assuming both have an interesting enough pitch).

Quote from: DevPIn fact, that player had a harder time with some of those improvisational parts. I'm not sure if that was due to the nature of the system or just the player's preferences.

If you have played with this player in a more traditionally structured game, how did they do under those circumstances?

QuoteI'd prefer the more decentralized one (assuming both have an interesting enough pitch).

This is for anyone who wants to respond:

Please list games in the following categories:

GM only;
Prefer to GM, but will play;
Both equally;
Prefer to play, but will GM;
Play only.

Is there a pattern to your answers in terms of traditional/non-traditional games?

Given that the Forge mostly consists of:

1. would-be game designers
2. pretentious theorists
3. really fanatical RPG collectors who by default tend to be the GMs

Then what you could say is not so much that this game is made for groups where "everyone wants to be GM" as it is for a group where no one wants to be a "mere" player.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven that the Forge mostly consists of:

1. would-be game designers
2. pretentious theorists
3. really fanatical RPG collectors who by default tend to be the GMs

Then what you could say is not so much that this game is made for groups where "everyone wants to be GM" as it is for a group where no one wants to be a "mere" player.

RPGPundit

Well, people have different temperments. Some don't want to be a "mere" player, others don't want to be a "sucker" GM. This bifurcation isn't the only possible way to look at Roleplayers, but I think it could prove useful, which is why I'm trying to examine it here.

Out of curiosity, what would you say your GM to play ratio is. Are you usually the GM, a player or does it run about even? Any idea what it is about what you like that you like? In other words, why do you think you have the preferences you do?

QuotePlease list games in the following categories:

GM only
Anything with a traditional set-up (ie when it's left to the GM to determine the structure of play). RuneQuest, V&V, GURPS etc.

Prefer to GM, but will play (depending on who's GMing)
HeroQuest, Sorcerer.

Both equally
Pendragon, My Life with Master, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. Anything with a strong procedure for play.

Prefer to play, but will GM/Play only
No specific game (depends on mood). I'll always run a game if I feel up to it.

QuoteIs there a pattern to your answers in terms of traditional/non-traditional games?

Definitely. I know the time-honoured tricks well enough that I have no interest in playing under them (I've GMed a lot). It's like being a passenger on a motorbike.

PD is a traditional game that is highly structured, like many of the Forgenschweiner games (though with very different aims from those). I like that in a game – it means I know what to expect when playing. I don't like everything I've tried, but I know why in each case and it wasn't the GM.

HQ and Sorcerer are great games, but they require too much deciphering by the GM for me to feel easy about them. They need talented or hard-working GMs who understand how to make them zing.

Quote from: apparition13Well, people have different temperments. Some don't want to be a "mere" player, others don't want to be a "sucker" GM. This bifurcation isn't the only possible way to look at Roleplayers, but I think it could prove useful, which is why I'm trying to examine it here.

Out of curiosity, what would you say your GM to play ratio is. Are you usually the GM, a player or does it run about even? Any idea what it is about what you like that you like? In other words, why do you think you have the preferences you do?

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

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBI, for one, made a game with distributed GM roles precisely so that I could get to play a lot more, without (a) feeling guilty that I wasn't GMing and/or (b) chafing at things that the GM was doing that I would do differently, if I had the authority.  With distributed GMing, I get to have the authority when I need it, but back off and let other people run things when I feel like it.

This is what I get (esp the bolded part) from most of the forge games discussions online. A bit off topic, but I started a thread about theory talk being aimed at GMs, here :  

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2501

I'm not so sure that Forge games = games for GMs, but I'm pretty sure, that Forge games = games for folks who do not like the trad GM/player dynamic

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI'm pretty sure, that Forge games = games for folks who do not like the trad GM/player dynamic

Well ... what about the many Forge games that have a wholly traditional GM/player dynamic?  Are those included in your generalization?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what about the many Forge games that have a wholly traditional GM/player dynamic?  Are those included in your generalization?

Nope. But then again, I thought we were talking about about those games that didn't have a trad set up. So, let me try again :

Forge games (which does not have a trad GM/player set up) = games for folks who don't like the the trad GM/player dynamic.

Is this better Tony?

Edit: Just to be clear

From the original post:

QuoteMany of the Forge games are all about spreading GM-like powers throughout the group, which seems ideal if you have a group made up of lots of GMs.

and

QuoteIt shouldn't be that difficult to test the hypothesis. Do a survey at Wizards, and another at the Forge, asking about preferences with regards to playing or GMing traditional games, and if you find significantly more (proportionally) GMs at the Forge, the conclusion that Forge games are designed for groups of GMs to play together, rather than traditional groups made up of one GM and some players, could be justified.

So,  was just going with the flow.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what about the many Forge games that have a wholly traditional GM/player dynamic?  Are those included in your generalization?

Hey Tony, I'm a bit out of the loop with what has been coming out of the forge recently. What would you say are the forge games with a trad GM/player dynamic?

Quote from: apparition13Hey Tony, I'm a bit out of the loop with what has been coming out of the forge recently. What would you say are the forge games with a trad GM/player dynamic?

Well, lots of them.  Burning Wheel, Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Sorceror, carry, With Great Power, Agon, Dust Devils ... like that.

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

RPGPundit

I'm with you on that. As a GM you get to do design. You get to design settings, NPCs, scenarios, make maps, do languages (if you're Tolkien or Barker), conspiracies, politics, and all the stuff that makes up the place in which play will happen. Once play starts, you put everything into motion. You bring the world to life, you put the scenario into play, you challenge the PCs and the players, and you have to react on the fly to everything the other brains at the table throw at you; interpreting their actions, integrating events, trying to keep up or, better yet, stay ahead; even though you're outnumbered and constantly caught off guard by the players; and you can do all of this, dance along the tightrope while juggling flaming laptops on which you are reading forums, writing a treatise on Hume and carrying on a conversation with you mother about her pie recipe and your uncle's drinking problem, because dammit, you're the GM and that's what GMs do.

On the other hand, what you give up is the depth and intesity of playing. Of designing your perfect little PC (all munchkined out or with a novel length backstory, it doesn't really matter), exploring the world and interacting with the rest of the PCs through the lens of your PC, characterizing, personalizing, immersing, caring about something that's only ink on a page, and then throwing it into harms way. Agonizing over every action, every throw of the dice, every conflict, because unlike the GM, all your eggs are in one basket, and everything is always at stake. Every victory is sweet, every defeat galls, and death brings despair as your lovingly crafted creation is consigned to the ether.

As GMs, we don't experience this.  Not the sense of threat, the anxiety, the commitment to every roll, the intensity of conflict, the depth of immersion, the comprehensiveness of characterization, none of it. There are always other NPCs, other taverns, other scenarios.

Not that I'd give up the seat of the pants creativity that is GMing to get the playing experience, but what if you could have both? Both the intensity of a player, and the creativity of a GM, and do it with other people who are like you? I think this is part of the design aesthetic of some forge like games. They get pitched as collaborative story telling, but what that really means is "let's us GMs get together and play without having to give up our GMing creativity".

Then again, I could be completely off base. The question is, does this lens, this way of looking at these games, have some use?   The nice thing is, it's a testable hypothesis, so it doesn't have to be just talking out of our asses.* That's why I started the thread, to see of there was any validity to the idea. So if anyone else would like to follow droog's example and pitch in, be my guest.



*Which is another frustration I have with proceedings at the forge. All that theorizing, all the trappings of science and academia, all those actual academics and scientists, and not even an attempt at testing an idea formally.

Quote from: droogGM only
Anything with a traditional set-up (ie when it's left to the GM to determine the structure of play). RuneQuest, V&V, GURPS etc.

Prefer to GM, but will play (depending on who's GMing)
HeroQuest, Sorcerer.

Both equally
Pendragon, My Life with Master, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. Anything with a strong procedure for play.

Prefer to play, but will GM/Play only
No specific game (depends on mood). I'll always run a game if I feel up to it.

Quote from: apparition13Is there a pattern to your answers in terms of traditional/non-traditional games?

Definitely. I know the time-honoured tricks well enough that I have no interest in playing under them (I've GMed a lot). It's like being a passenger on a motorbike.

PD is a traditional game that is highly structured, like many of the Forgenschweiner games (though with very different aims from those). I like that in a game – it means I know what to expect when playing. I don't like everything I've tried, but I know why in each case and it wasn't the GM.

HQ and Sorcerer are great games, but they require too much deciphering by the GM for me to feel easy about them. They need talented or hard-working GMs who understand how to make them zing.

What do you mean by "a strong procedure for play"?

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: apparition13Hey Tony, I'm a bit out of the loop with what has been coming out of the forge recently. What would you say are the forge games with a trad GM/player dynamic?

Well, lots of them. Burning Wheel, Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Sorceror, carry, With Great Power, Agon, Dust Devils ... like that.

I'm familiar with the first five, to one degree or another. They do have a GM/player split, but would you say it's a traditional GM/player division of power and responsibility?

droog mentions DitV, MLwM and Sorcerer, but doesn't place them with "traditional" games, which he classifies as GM only. Where would you place them according to the fuzzy categories from above? How about the other games?

Quote from: apparition13I'm familiar with the first five, to one degree or another. They do have a GM/player split, but would you say it's a traditional GM/player division of power and responsibility?

I would, yes.  The GM describes the world, the players play their characters, the GM provides situation and adversity, etc., etc.  They're cleaving pretty closely to well-tested models of GM-player division of labor.

If the players can mandate changes to the world without it being directly connected to their PC's abilities and actions, then the game does not have the traditional GM/player split. This includes any game where the player can dictate the "stakes" of what an NPCs reaction will be if the player rolls better on his check than the GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf the players can mandate changes to the world without it being directly connected to their PC's abilities and actions, then the game does not have the traditional GM/player split. This includes any game where the player can dictate the "stakes" of what an NPCs reaction will be if the player rolls better on his check than the GM.

But isn't that what skills like diplomacy and intimidation have always done?

Are you saying that any game with social mechanics has, by definition, a non-traditional GM/player split?

When 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.
In real RPGs, the PC can roll intimidation, but what effect it has is up to the GM; in some circumstances it might make his opponents flee, in some it might make his opponents surrender, in some it might just unnerve them; and in some it might do fuck all.

So no, its not fucking similar at all.

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

Quote from: TonyLBBut isn't that what skills like diplomacy and intimidation have always done?

Actually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player. I think that is what Pundit's point was. When you make a successful diplomacy roll in D&D 3x, for example, your character succeeds -- the DM is still the one who decides how they succeed.

I (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. In these games, the players react to a story, they don't help create it.

Personally, I prefer that players have some authorial control. Having to rely solely on dice and my GM to interpret the results of dice rolls fairly has lead to some of the worst campaigns I've ever played in. In games that utilize the traditional paradigm, if your GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed.

In games where players have some authorial control, players can often ensure they're having enough fun that the campaign need not be declared a total loss.

Quote from: jdrakehActually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player. I think that is what Pundit's point was. When you make a successful diplomacy roll in D&D 3x, for example, your character succeeds -- the DM is still the one who decides how they succeed.

I (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. In these games, the players react to a story, they don't hel create it.

I think I agree as well. So even though Donjon, Elfs and Trollbabe have GMs, they fall on the non-traditional side of the divide.

QuotePersonally, I prefer that players have some authorial control. Having to rely solely on dice and my GM to interpret the results of dice rolls fairly has lead to some of the worst campaigns I've ever played in. In games that utilize the traditional paradigm, if your GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed.

In games where players have some authorial control, players can often ensure they're having enough fun that the campaign need not be declared a total loss.

I'd say if the GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed no matter what. On the other hand, if the GM is a noob, or not too creative, or can get flustered when his plans go to hell, not being responsible for everything can save a game.

Well there's a thought. Dispersed control = game for teaching how to GM? I might need to mull that over a bit, but I'll throw it out anyway.

Quote from: apparition13I'd say if the GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed no matter what.

Generally, yes -- but in games that grant players authorial control, you can manage to squeeze in  a few moments of fun. If your GM is a clueless dickhead, this is just next to impossible in games that utilize the traditional GM/player paradigm (IME, anyhow).

QuoteOn the other hand, if the GM is a noob, or not too creative, or can get flustered when his plans go to hell, not being responsible for everything can save a game.

Conversely, it can be horribly confusing. I've found that most games which eschew the traditional paradigm assume that the reader already knows something of RPGs. I can't see too many people who have absolutely zero experience with RPGs understanding, for example, Donjon or  Paladin.

Donjon, for example, assumes that the reader is intimately familiar with Basic D&D and many of the assumptions that sadi game makes (which Donjon then lampoons). Without that knowledge, I can see large swaths of Donjon not making any sense. In fact, I have seen it.

Paladin, on the other hand, offers no point of reference for hobby newcomers -- it simply gives the reader some rules and a few setting hooks. There isn't much information on how to actually play the game, let alone why one woudl want to (i.e., the premise is implied, not stated).

All of that ambiguity and assumption (something very common in indie games) makes then very un-friendly for first-time GMs, I think. I think that they're great for exprienced roleplayers who are looking to induct newcomers into the hobby, but I would never recommend an indei game to somebody who had no prior experience with RPGs.

No, for newcomers, I still think that games cleaving to the traditional paradigm are the best thing going (currently). Now, if more indie games dumped the assumptions and did more in the way of orientation (such as, for example, Burning Wheel: Revised does), I'd be inclined to take up a different position -- but very few indie games do that.

Quote from: jdrakehActually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player. I think that is what Pundit's point was. When you make a successful diplomacy roll in D&D 3x, for example, your character succeeds -- the DM is still the one who decides how they succeed.

Sure!  The mechanics determine some constraints on what kind of thing must happen (the intimidation check was won by five Snurfles, so clearly the bad guys aren't going to just stand there and scoff ... they gotta be scared somehow) and then the GM narrates the outcome within those constraints.

I'm just ... how is that different from conflict resolution systems where the stakes determine some constraints and then the GM narrates the outcome within those constraints?

Now a game (like Capes or (I'm pretty sure) Donjon) where winning the conflict gives the player the right to wholly take over narration?  Sure.  That's diverging from the traditional PC/GM paradigm.  No argument.

But DitV (for instance) where the player gets to say "My stakes are that he's really fuckin' impressed and turns from his heathen ways to follow the King of Life," but then the GM gets to decide how he turns, and what kind of follower the ex-heathen becomes?  Where's the difference?

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

Ummm...huh?

How are players directing their characters, deciding where to go and what to do, only reacting and not creating?

Quote from: TonyLBhow is that different from conflict resolution systems where the stakes determine some constraints and then the GM narrates the outcome within those constraints?

No no no. Please no.  You did not just bring up "conflict resolution (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1503)."

And if you're telling me there's no difference between a player determining the stakes and the GM determining the stakes, it's going to be hard to come to any kind of common understanding.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd if you're telling me there's no difference between a player determining the stakes and the GM determining the stakes, it's going to be hard to come to any kind of common understanding.

Of course there's a difference.  There's also a difference between games played in a basement and games played in a pub.  But those differences are not necessarily relevant to the question of GM and player roles, right?

If the argument here is that giving players the chance to directly seek (through the rules) some outcome other than the ones written into the rules (like "he's scared" outcomes that are written into the descriptions of the "intimidate" skill) undermines the entire traditional GM/player paradigm then ... okay.  Let's hear that.  Right now, I think that's a largely unconnected question, but I'm open to becoming convinced that it's central.  I've never heard it argued in quite that fashion before.

EDIT:  I'm inclined to worry that this tangent is far enough from the original topic that it deserves its own thread ... though, at the same time, it's hard to discuss "Are Forge games in rebellion against the traditional GM/player divide" if everyone has radically different senses of what that traditional divide is.  Split off?  Stay in the same thread?  Any thoughts?

Quote from: jdrakehPersonally, I prefer that players have some authorial control. Having to rely solely on dice and my GM to interpret the results of dice rolls fairly has lead to some of the worst campaigns I've ever played in. In games that utilize the traditional paradigm, if your GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed.

I'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.

QuoteIn games where players have some authorial control, players can often ensure they're having enough fun that the campaign need not be declared a total loss.

Yeah, or primma donna players can steal everyone else's fun, or one jackass player can ruin the GM's concept because "he can".

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBBut DitV (for instance) where the player gets to say "My stakes are that he's really fuckin' impressed and turns from his heathen ways to follow the King of Life," but then the GM gets to decide how he turns, and what kind of follower the ex-heathen becomes?  Where's the difference?

There's a huge difference. That's already not an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBIf the argument here is that giving players the chance to directly seek (through the rules) some outcome other than the ones written into the rules (like "he's scared" outcomes that are written into the descriptions of the "intimidate" skill) undermines the entire traditional GM/player paradigm then ... okay.  Let's hear that.  Right now, I think that's a largely unconnected question, but I'm open to becoming convinced that it's central.  I've never heard it argued in quite that fashion before.

If the GM doesn't have the authority to say "NO, he fucking doesn't turn to the goddamned magic deer/king of life"; then that's a HUGE difference. Suddenly, the buck doesn't stop with the GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: apparition13What do you mean by "a strong procedure for play"?

droog mentions DitV, MLwM and Sorcerer, but doesn't place them with "traditional" games, which he classifies as GM only. Where would you place them according to the fuzzy categories from above? How about the other games?

Well, hold hard! Sorcerer, at least, is really indistinguishable from any game you might class as traditional, unless you take Ron's advice for how to run the game, and follow it. Even then, it's not necessarily different from anything some GM might do in a game. So I'll play Sorcerer if run as written, but otherwise it's a game like any other. And I think I've already established that I'm a tough customer when it comes to roleplaying.

So it's not necessarily the game, it's the way it's run. You could take any game I'm familiar with and apply the principles of Sorcerer's GM prep, for example. I've done some of that myself with HQ.

DitV is written more accessibly than Sorcerer, and the text is much clearer about its aims. Just about anybody can run a decent game of DitV. But let's be clear: Vincent didn't reinvent any wheels; he took what some GMs did already, codified it, refined it, made it repeatable and turned it up to 11.

Note that DitV comes after a whole bunch of discussion on the Forge and after MLwM, which is highly structured in a way unlike either Sorcerer or DitV. But the lessons had been learned: a solid procedure of play gets everybody on the same page and tells both the GM and the players what they have to do (cf. Donjon and Paladin as referenced by James).

Does that make it clearer? A procedure of play is what you do when you play. If the book doesn't do it for you, you work it out for yourself.

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.

Is that what you think of your present group?

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.

Hyperbole much? ;) You seem to be confusing "some authorial control" with "total control of the entire game" -- that's not what I meant. I meant, very specifically, "some authorial control" (stuff like the Dramatic Editing mechanic of Adventure!).

QuoteYeah, or primma donna players can steal everyone else's fun, or one jackass player can ruin the GM's concept because "he can".

This 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.

Quote from: James J SkachHow are players directing their characters, deciding where to go and what to do, only reacting and not creating?

In 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.

The 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.

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

Quote from: TonyLBBut DitV (for instance) where the player gets to say "My stakes are that he's really fuckin' impressed and turns from his heathen ways to follow the King of Life," but then the GM gets to decide how he turns, and what kind of follower the ex-heathen becomes?  Where's the difference?

I 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.

Uh ... 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?

Quote from: SRDA successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe.

Bluff was the skill that let you determine NPCs reactions.

I'm not sure spreading around the GM powers would ever be ideal.  I think the overlap between what each GM wants would get in the way even more than it would have if you didn't have the power.

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

You know what I meant, Tony. Not that the wild hyperoble and subsequent strawman wasn't amusing.

Quote... but the GM's narration is constrained in either case, isn't it?

This isn't the issue being discussed. The issue being discussed isn't the restriction of GM narrative authority, but the imbuing of players with such authority. Traditional games don't do this.

Traditional 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.

Again, the issue isn't the limitation of GM control, but in allowing other players to assume duties reserved solely for the GM in traditional games.

Quote from: jdrakehIn 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.

What would be wrong with "I want to talk this guy into giving up his heathen ways", even in the traditional context? That's simply the player being more specific about what the character is attempting to do.

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.

I don't want to get into this romance with you and Tony, but I think this is questionable. I think it's truer to say that narrative authority is a big grey area in many games.

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).

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28907&postcount=206), 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 (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/heropoints.html) 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

Well put apparition, but your words are wasted. He's not actually interested in the debate, he's just trolling me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven 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.

I think you're totally misreading him, but then again I think he thinks he agrees with GNS but that he doesn't, really.

Quote from: apparition13Which 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?

To paraphrase the rule in question, pretty much whatever the player wants. "Target has DCV 0 and will nearly always follow commands." (p170, Champions, 4th ed)

QuoteYou'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.

Look, I do get this. I just rather object to the suggestion that any player input to adjudication of system results means that the game ceases to be a role-playing game. There is absolutely no justification for such claims whatsoever.

Quote from: apparition13Since 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.

I think that's a good idea and needs to be explicitly stated. After all, many and possibly most GMs have been doing it for years anyhow with their favourite NPCs.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteTo paraphrase the rule in question, pretty much whatever the player wants. "Target has DCV 0 and will nearly always follow commands." (p170, Champions, 4th ed)

Sorry, wasn't looking at the at the rule. You said "running away like little girls time", which I took to mean flight, so I provided options the GM might consider for running away.

As for "Target has DCV 0 and will nearly always follow commands.", that is what the last example I provided...

Quote"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?""

specifically refers to. The system determines the mechanical results, "Target has DCV 0 and will nearly always follow commands.", but the GMs narration tells you what that means.

QuoteLook, I do get this. I just rather object to the suggestion that any player input to adjudication of system results means that the game ceases to be a role-playing game. There is absolutely no justification for such claims whatsoever.

I've never said that, and I don't think anyone, even RPGPundit would say that. What he and others (not including me, I'm pretty live and let live on the topic) don't seem to like, is games that explicitly set out to do that. They like the traditional GM/player dynamic and division of labor.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteI think that's a good idea and needs to be explicitly stated.

I'm pretty sure I did that in post 1 of this thread, and I'm fairly certain that was the topic of discussion for several posts until this diversion occured. I'd appreciate it if you would look over the beginning section of the thread, and give your input. I'd be interested in how you might respond to my post #12. I thought droog's reply was particullarly helpful.

QuoteAfter all, many and possibly most GMs have been doing it for years anyhow with their favourite NPCs.

To me, this is a separate question, and one not without its own pitfalls (namely "pet" GMPCs that steal the spotlight). Fell free to expand on this point, should you so wish.