Quote from: Thanatos02I'm *very* sure I'm not slapping in any kind of literal sense.)

There was that once...

I dick slap my players all the time...so much so I need a cigarette afterwards. BTW I use my viking hat as an ashtray.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BrantaiThere was that once...

It doesn't count if you're drunk or in college.

Quote from: lukePeople are leaving the hobby in droves. (...) There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." (...)I define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

Well... who am I to know that. So...

21) Do you have any factual evidence, that people are leaving the hobby in droves. And if so, that this is not a common state - eg. it is happening since the beginning. And finally, that this is cause by the "traditional GM approach".

22) To put it very directly, as proposed by -E: "Do you think that the role of the traditional GM, with absolute in-game authority, is damaging to the hobby?"

23) and also by -E: "Do you think rules-sets that give the GM absolute in-game authority inherently cause social problems for most people who play traditional games?"

Quote from: luke19) Alnag, I honestly don't understand the question.

I will try to rephrase my question than. Ron Edwards coins the term Incoherent game. See here for example.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAlso, most incoherent game designs are partly or even primarily High Concept Simulationist as well, with AD&D2 and Vampire (first edition) as the best-known examples.

This expression was adopted by the Forge community. So the question is. Do you accept this "expression" as yours. Do you think it has some merit?

Isn't it suspicious, that the most successful games* (see above) are called incoherent? Doesn't it sound much like "sour grapes".

*I define successful game here simply by the amout of players. More players mean more successful.

Quote from: luke20) Of course I've been brain damaged by gaming. Look at me. I even publish my own games -- the worst sign of brain damage there is.

24) I understand it, that sign of brain damage is publishing of your own games. What are some other signs? Also if brain damage leads to publishing of one's own games, isn't it possible, that the Forge and other "designer-oriented" pages are gathering of brain-damaged players and the rest of the hobby is normal?

Luke, I have a followup on this:

Quote from: lukeThese gamers believe the GM's job is to simultaneously take no shit from uppity players while also guiding them through his story with a fatherly hand.

Do you think that "guiding players through his story" is an essential characteristic of GMs in "traditional" games

1) in the historical sense? That is, it's how things were always done until recently?

2) in the structural sense? That is, it's a necessary consequence of the mechanics and advice contained in most RPGs published before the last few years?

I realize there might be some exceptions to "always" and "most", but if your answer is "yes" to (1) or (2), could you give a sense of whether the exceptions would be better characterized as "a significant minority" or "isolated cases"?

Thanatos,
No. I'm simply saying that we have some bad habits. In light of the waning sales and dying companies, I think self-examination is a good thing.

James,
1) This is a fact.

2) Uh, sure.

3) Purely anecdotal. However, before you go ballistic about how I can't scientifically prove anything, there is precious little hard user data on anything in this hobby. We have limited sales figures, an outdated study by Ryan Dancy/WOTC and that's about it. Everything in this hobby is done by observation. gut instinct and bravado.

4) The patriarchism I observe is present in some groups. I don't know where it springs from, but I suspect, like many things, it's source is external to the game and it's application is reinforced by text within the game.

5) People do not always act in their own best interest. Regardless, I do not think that this one bad habit will be the downfall of the hobby. It's one bad habit out of many. This one is worth examination because it engenders exclusionary behavior (and reinforces negative stereotypes). And before you jerk knees over that, think for a moment just how small the RPG hobby is. It is a niche and as a whole we practice exclusionary behavior.

6) See above. I never claimed that this particular bad habit was the root of all evil. Merely that it does exist and it certainly isn't helping.

Alnag,
21) There are, unfortunately, no exit interviews for people who give up. However, we do have a plethora of additional evidence at our disposal. First, the demise of various companies, Wizards Attic, Osseum, Guardians of Order and numerous others over the past few years. Second, Green Ronin and Palladium nearly went under last year and had to plead with their fans to keep them in business. This is not a good sign. Third, some numbers:

2004: http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=133
2005: http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=186

Things are not going well.

22) Yup.

23) Nope.

19.2) I agree with Ron. Games can have incoherent agenda -- professing to be about one thing while actually representing something else in their mechanics and rules. It's a pretty common flaw.

Remember, I also believe games can objectively improve over time through experimentation and development. Therefore, it's possible to have small improvements and advancements that are, ultimately, imperfect. White Wolf's claim that their games were about storytelling was an improvement in and of itself. It slammed the idea of "story" to the fore. Obviously, many people were interested in that. The lack of mechanical support for that claim was problematic.

But quality or efficiency of design do not determine popularity. Imperfect things become popular all the time. I'll leave examples up to your imagination.

And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to compare White Wolf's success with small press games. White Wolf was born into a very different gaming market for one. And their objectives as a company were and are markedly different -- notably, they were a company with a marketing and advertising budget. And it's often marketing and advertising that make something popular, not quality. Small press games are mostly designed for design's sake and no marketing beyond word of mouth is undertaken.

24) Other signs of brain damage include drooling, obsessively touching my keys, banging my head against the wall, rocking back and forth and clutching myself while screaming "GRENADE" over and over again. It is absolutely possible that we're the crazy ones and you're all normal. In fact, I honestly hope that's the case.


Eliot,
1a) Yup. But, you know, I don't know where the "story" concept was introduced exactly. The mechanic underpinnings for the behavior are there in the repetition of Rule Zero in various important texts -- like the AD&D DMG.

1/2) I'm certain that it was not universal in the past. Lots of games have glimmers and hints of power-sharing mechanics or at least non-autocratic rules. These self-same games often undermine the power-sharing by including rules that grant the GM ultimate authority over rules, story and fun. Whatever is being published now did not spring from nothing. It has grown from the traditions of 30 years of gaming.

-L

[This is all one question, rephrased in several different ways, hopefully for clarity.]

Well hang on a second there, Luke. I mean thanks for your answer, but ultimate authority isn't the same as unbridled prerogrative, is it? Does it even imply a particular responsibility in itself?

Do you think it's an essential characteristic of "traditional" RPGs to make the GM responsible for "telling the story"? Or to put it another way, is it possible to temper the power to interpret, change, or ignore rules with the responsibility to do so fairly, with restraint, and in a manner that allows the players to guide play in a significant way, instead of leading them through "the story"?

(Again let's not get hung up on the inevitable problem of "how often is often?" But as before I'd appreciate distinguishing historical practice and actual games-as-written.)

Quote from: lukePurely anecdotal. However, before you go ballistic about how I can't scientifically prove anything, there is precious little hard user data on anything in this hobby. We have limited sales figures, an outdated study by Ryan Dancy/WOTC and that's about it. Everything in this hobby is done by observation. gut instinct and bravado.

I get it.  I understand there's little in the way of statistical information. It's why so many people can claim so many things on so many apsects of gaming. Have I gone ballistic on any of your answers? I'll save that for later...

But what struck me is that the bolded portion is a curious statement. The outdated study was based on a survey from 1999, released in 2000.  The copyright on the GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory essay is 2001.  So the GNS article was copyrighted only a year after the outdated study was released. System Does Matter was last updated in early 2004.

When the study was done, in 1999/2000, the gaming industry was already in contraction. This was before The Forge, but after Threefold from the usenet crowd.

Is the idea of GM Power being damaging to the hobby a later development? Is that why the study can be claimed to be "outdated?"

I'm no historian of RPG's, and so it probably requires somebody with more knowledge than I on the timeline...

Quote from: lukeThanatos,
No. I'm simply saying that we have some bad habits. In light of the waning sales and dying companies, I think self-examination is a good thing.

-L

Thanks. I understand that it's a 'softball', but that is always the impression I got from you. To put a point on it, I never felt that Burning Wheel or its ilk excluded, unconditionally, ever playing D&D again. For me, it just means that it's a different structure that creates a different playstyle that may be more appealing to some, while less appealing to others.

Eliot,

1) Nope, not unbridled prerogative. But power always implies responsibility. Just look at the standard reaction to what's a GM's job? The inevitable answer is "to facilitate fun." Seems rational and healthy, but in practice a GM's job is much more complex.

2) Like I said, I don't know where the "story" part came into the equation. On my shelf at the moment I've got the AD&D DMG granting the GM (or DM) the power to ignore any rule that gets in his way, then 15 years later something like Fading Suns gleefully urging the GM to murder any players who fuck up his story. It's a part of gamer culture, though.

And of course it's possible to use power responsibly. But the major conceit that a lot of contemporary game designers take is that you don't have to grant overarching powers to one player in order to make sure game and "story" go smoothly. Rules that do grant that power point to weak design. It's possible to design robust rules sets that clearly outline everyone's role, and are completely functional systems without having to give one player the huge temptation to break the rules as he sees fit.

James,
Are you asking why the study is outdated? It's outdated because it was done at the end of an RPG crash -- when Pokemon and Magic ruled the swamps -- and before the booming release of DnD 3.0 and DnD 3.5. It is outdated because we've had a phenomenal RPG hit in the form of World of Warcraft -- but no one's certain of its actual impact.

Also, I love how you've turned my assertion "There's a group of hardcore assholes with a bad attitude in our hobby who aren't helping" into "GM power is damaging to the hobby." Very conservative talking points of you.

Quote from: lukeAre you asking why the study is outdated? It's outdated because it was done at the end of an RPG crash -- when Pokemon and Magic ruled the swamps -- and before the booming release of DnD 3.0 and DnD 3.5. It is outdated because we've had a phenomenal RPG hit in the form of World of Warcraft -- but no one's certain of its actual impact.

Which are all valid issues.  But it's a bit of misdirection as we were talking about your anecdotally-based belief that there were people coming to looking for collaborative storytelling and finding this "weird" GM power issue. The things you bring up that make it outdated having nothing to do with that, do they?  Am I missing a connection between Magic and Pokeman and WoW and the GM power.player Empowerment issue?

Quote from: lukeAlso, I love how you've turned my assertion "There's a group of hardcore assholes with a bad attitude in our hobby who aren't helping" into "GM power is damaging to the hobby." Very conservative talking points of you.

Perhaps this will clear things up as to where I "turned your assertion" into something it's not.

Quote from: Analg22) To put it very directly, as proposed by -E: "Do you think that the role of the traditional GM, with absolute in-game authority, is damaging to the hobby?"

Quote from: luke22) Yup.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm reading your answers to get a picture. If what you meant when you said "Yup," was "There's a group of hard-core assholes with a bad attitude in our hobby who aren't helping," I'm sorry for misintepreting.  I don't think it was a great stretch though.

So which is it - is it a group of people who GM a certain way, or is it the fact that there are games that provide the GM with absolute in-game authority?

And please, please, please, don't take this as confrontational.  I'm just trying to get clarification.

Luke,

You have a pretty range of literary works you cite as inspiration/influence re:  BW or mention in the game's text.  Are there any of these (Brust, The Iliad, Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, for one) that you believe BW would be more well-suited for, as well as perhaps some of these it would be less ideal for in regards to running a game inspired by that story/general setting?  Are there any kind of fantasy/fantasy-related titles you enjoy you have a hard time seeing how they'd mesh with BW?

Quote from: lukeAnd of course it's possible to use power responsibly. But the major conceit that a lot of contemporary game designers take is that you don't have to grant overarching powers to one player in order to make sure game and "story" go smoothly. Rules that do grant that power point to weak design. It's possible to design robust rules sets that clearly outline everyone's role, and are completely functional systems without having to give one player the huge temptation to break the rules as he sees fit.
.
.
.
It's outdated because it was done at the end of an RPG crash -- when Pokemon and Magic ruled the swamps -- and before the booming release of DnD 3.0 and DnD 3.5.

You've stated:

Quote from: lukeI think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion.

You've also answer affirmative so that it's not out of the realm of interpretation to believe you think "that the role of the traditional GM, with absolute in-game authority, is damaging to the hobby."
So:
Is DnD 3.5, though cleaner and more cohesive than previous versions, still a weak design (as it grants the kind of power you've described to one player)?
Assuming DnD 3.5 grants this kind of absolute in-game authority, but it caused a "booming release," is this not counter to what should have been the response given your conclusion that this very structure is damaging the hobby?

Quote from: lukeI wear my stripes proudly. I'm not going change what I believe or preach to satisfy the answers to your questions.

In reaction to this (in Kudos/Comments):

25) Is there anything, you can imagine to happen, that would make you change what you belive or preach? (I mean believe in relation to RPGs). Be it some trustworthy research, opinion of someone, some new RPG, some strange twist in your life?

Quote from: lukeFun is utterly subjective and it's not a measure of anything objective.

26) Reading this and some other posts as well... how do you feel about scientific approach to games and fun? Do you belive it is possible or just scientific gibberish? (By scientific I mean things such as psychology...)

27) Don't you think, that the game design with one leading player (that is GM) is successful (or popular or continuing in existence), because it is natural for human societies (small groups) to create this kind of pattern?

28) Isn't the "ultimate power of GM" actually less about breaking of the rules and more about social issue of group trust, that he will not abuse it?

29) How would you react to the situation in which players after testing refuse the expanded powers and demanded the return to traditional gaming model? (Acutally happened to one of my acquaintance... FATE vs. Wheel of Time d20.) Are they braindamaged, if they want "GM to have the ultimate power?"

I recently read this from the  "Dungeons & Dragons Dungeons Master's Guide" first edition, by Gary Gygax (copyright 1979):

QuoteIn many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such things as melee hits or saving throws. However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might with to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

Quote from: LukeAnd of course it's possible to use power responsibly. But the major conceit that a lot of contemporary game designers take is that you don't have to grant overarching powers to one player in order to make sure game and "story" go smoothly. Rules that do grant that power point to weak design. It's possible to design robust rules sets that clearly outline everyone's role, and are completely functional systems without having to give one player the huge temptation to break the rules as he sees fit.

#1 - What is particularly interesting to me is that the GM is explicitly granted "Rights" in D&D which could lead to abuse, should the GM be less than cool.   Understood.  I've played with both cool and uncool GMs.  I know the score.  

However, I, as a GM, never subscribed to this rule at all.  From the beginning of my game I played a "I don't cheat policy" GMing position, meaning that I always go with the dice, and if a Character (even a favorite NPC) dies in the process, I chalk it off as the nature of the game, and we moved on and roll a new Character.  (This lends an Aura of Potential Death to each game, and causes my players play more carefully).  In the process I *think* this substantially reduces the "GM is God" effect.   I've always gotten positive feedback from my players on this point.  

Question:  Luke, given the fact that a GM can override the 'GM Fiat' aspect of the D&D rules, would you say that a "The GM Won't Cheat Policy" (even if the dice are hidden (yes, trust required)) is sufficient to offset the "weak design" which I think you are suggesting is inherent in the D&D rules (see above quote)?   If not, do you think there is anything could could be done to keep D&D essentially intact and at the same time reduce or eliminate the need for 'Player Empowerment'?  

#2 - The way I Gamesmaster is to have control over the Back Story (history, political situation, and background for the world and campaign), while the Players have full control over their Characters actions, feelings, and reactions to in-world events.  I also, as Gamesmaster control the NPCs, and the Players control any NPCs that are part of their Group, which could potentially be any number (if they have an army lets say).   In other words they control the Protagonists and I control the Antagonists of the story, and through our interactions within the Setting the Plot is created forming a cumulative collaboration of Setting + Plot, or Narrative as you prefer to call it.  In my view the boundary of Authority over story is well defined, and therefore leads to a mutual collaboration between the GM and Players, neither having more control over the resulting Narrative (story) than the other.  Would you say that this is sufficient to offset or eliminate the need for 'Player Empowerment'?

#3 - Do I have the causes for the need for 'Player Empowerment' defined correctly?  Are there others?  

- Mark