I fail to see how any RPG (in the real world) doesn't require somebody to make shit up. Often including whether to apply a rule or not.

It's more a matter whose shit sticks (so to speak). There are games that nominally trade the Viking Hat around...but if you think they aren't still subject to social wrangling, well, you're wrong. The only other alternative are games that simply leave big holes and tell the group to decide collaboratively. Unfortunately putting it as starkly as that is often the least functional approach to achieving real consensus.

Quote from: lukeJust curious, E, but would you roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble?

I have on many occassions; certainly at conventions -- when gaming in someone's home it's hard to avoid *any* pre-game contact, but I've sat down with a new group with very little pre-game show (college clubs, for example... back in the day!)

I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant, but I'm taking a guess it has something to do with trusting strangers to respect my preferences?

In a one-shot situation (like a convention) I might be disappointed to learn that my preferences, but it wouldn't ruin the greater experience for me. And frankly, I'd be disappointed at the absence of respect -- even if the rules forced them to let me have my way, I wouldn't consider that a "win."

When I'm joining a new group that I expect (hope) to play with long-term, I'm looking for the kinds of people I want to spend time with: people who are friendly, respectful, funny, smart, considerate, etc. (sounds like a personal ad...) -- so, again -- if Joe the GM tries to screw me but is thwarted by the rules... I'd count that just as negative as if he'd managed to screw me (it's all about intent).

Make sense? I might have completely missed the point / direction you were taking this.

Cheers,
-E.

E,
Sure. Just curious.

Eliot,
I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm speaking of games which have a rule that grants one player the power to subvert consensus or negotiation based on what he thinks is right at any given moment. Once that kind of power is granted, games become more about navigating that player's priorities and prefences than applying the rules equally and fairly all around.

Quote from: lukeThis may be true, but it seems like a poor fix. If having clear cut rules lessens the chance that one tired, overworked player is going to have to make something up on the fly, why not just get rid of "fiat" altogether and simply say that the players must obey the rules? It's a much more simple and elegant solution from a game design standpoint.

-L

Why is removing GM fiat simpler or more-elegant?

From a rules-complexity standpoint, nothing could be simpler than Rule 0; I guess "elegant" is in the eye of the beholder.

Consider grammar. Full of rules, right? And when trying to communicate, rules help. But writers and poets often break them for good reasons -- often artistic impact.

Would you argue that authors and poets should never be allowed to break the rules of grammar?

I'm guessing "no."

Then why argue for immutable rules in RPGs?

Cheers,
-E.

What a perfectly imperfect analogy.

I'll tell you what. Let's sit down and play a game. Let's say... Monopoly. In this version of Monopoly, the guy wearing red-framed glasses and a death metal t-shirt gets to override rules as he sees fit. That seems fair to me! In fact, the rules state that this player makes the game more exciting for everyone and can use his innate sense of drama to make the game better. I'm cheerful, energetic and enthusiastic about the game. I'm clearly not being a dick or an asshole. I slide my little thimble a space or two ahead in order to land on some choice property. I explain to you why this will make a better game in the long run. Trust me. I snag some extra cash from the bank when I'm low and explain why this makes the game more dramatic. I promise you that I'll make it up to you in the end. I stop short of landing on your properties, explaining the tense excitement of it all.



I'm a game designer. I simply want to provide the players of my games clear, fair rules that produce consistent results from game to game.
-L

Luke: If your RPG expirences were at all like a game of monopoly, with the GM actively trying to win, no wonder you think we are all drain bramaged.

Spike, that's an excellent example of two things: 1) Analogies are imperfect! You're absolutely right. I shouldn't have gone there. And 2) a keenly uncharitable reading of what I was trying to say.

Keenly uncharitable?  Serious?

I'm not your enemy here, Luke.  I like Burning Empires, for all I will probably never play it.

Your analogy has one player of the game blatently cheating to win.  Aside from your own game(s?) I haven't seen any RPG ever set up where the GM is supposed to be competing with other players in some weird attempt to 'win the game'.  In fact, most RPG's I'm familiar with... right there in the part where they explain games to newcomers, tell you that there is no 'winning' the RPG.  Players aren't competing in game terms, not against each other, and not really against the GM. Does it happen? Sure.  Then again, if I looked hard enough I can find someone who eats their own feces. That doesn't mean I need a good receipe for human shit in the average cookbook.

But yeah, that was a crappy analogy. Maybe that's why I was 'uncharitable', it left no room for other interpretation.

Quote from: lukeAnd 2) a keenly uncharitable reading of what I was trying to say.

I'm sorry to say that Spike doesn't seem to be reading that in bad faith. I kind of understand what you're trying to get across, but it's true that Monopoly is a game where you fight to win and RPGs arn't, really, in the traditional sense.

To be accurate, Monopoly would have to have rules for surviving while being poor, perhaps under the guide of another player or NPC while the guy with red glasses and metal shirt totally wasn't actually a player but just acted as a banker and commanded some several different pieces both in service to and antagonistic against player-controlled buisnesses and pieces.  Even with as far as that analogy gets streched, it's still not really close enough to be easily read as getting across your intentions, but it'd be a start.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Thanatos, Spike. Are you insisting that RPGs are special in regards to games?* And that they need special rules and situations that seem good enough for every other type of game.

The analogy presented was of a game in which one player had special discretion over other players and was only beholden to his good judgement. We are not univerally rational, fair beings. We each have our own biases, many of them shift according to our needs and whims.

RPGs aren't special. There is simply this ingrained tradition to build rules in a certain fashion. Is successful by default -- because that was the only way it was done. Only now are the basic assumptions that make up roleplaying game being seriously questioned.

*Don't bring sports into this.

Quote from: lukeWhat a perfectly imperfect analogy.

I'll tell you what. Let's sit down and play a game. Let's say... Monopoly. In this version of Monopoly, the guy wearing red-framed glasses and a death metal t-shirt gets to override rules as he sees fit. That seems fair to me! In fact, the rules state that this player makes the game more exciting for everyone and can use his innate sense of drama to make the game better. I'm cheerful, energetic and enthusiastic about the game. I'm clearly not being a dick or an asshole. I slide my little thimble a space or two ahead in order to land on some choice property. I explain to you why this will make a better game in the long run. Trust me. I snag some extra cash from the bank when I'm low and explain why this makes the game more dramatic. I promise you that I'll make it up to you in the end. I stop short of landing on your properties, explaining the tense excitement of it all.



I'm a game designer. I simply want to provide the players of my games clear, fair rules that produce consistent results from game to game.
-L

This post appeared below mine; that may have been coincidence.

Were you assuming I was making an analogy comparing writing or poetry to RPG's?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: lukeRPGs aren't special. There is simply this ingrained tradition to build rules in a certain fashion. Is successful by default -- because that was the only way it was done. Only now are the basic assumptions that make up roleplaying game being seriously questioned.

I don't really have a problem with this ....except when those assumptions are based on dodgy reasoning such as 'brain damage", the tradional player/gm dynamic being broken and a whole lot of other "stuff". Also I have issues with "successful by default"*...

It's like folks who say that D&D is only successful because it was the first rpg.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: lukeEliot,
I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm speaking of games which have a rule that grants one player the power to subvert consensus or negotiation based on what he thinks is right at any given moment. Once that kind of power is granted, games become more about navigating that player's priorities and prefences than applying the rules equally and fairly all around.

I do understand what you're saying; my response is a bit subtle but it really gets to the heart of how tabletop RPGs are played. And I don't mean some claptrap like "RPGs necessarily entail violating the rules". Rather, the rules in a tabletop RPG always include a certain amount of discretion when it comes to framing or resolving situations. BW and D&D 3.x for example both have very precise combat rules, but they still leave it up to someone to decide who the combatants will be; furthermore I don't think either one has a hard & fast rule to determine when NPCs/monsters will surrender or run away. (I'm less sure about that for D&D than I am for BW.)

Other "story-game" type RPGs typically require an individual or the group to identify "the scope" of a conflict and determine, either before or after dice are rolled, what will happen if X wins the conflict or Y does. If you give a player temporary power to dictate, you aren't really creating consensus: you're still walking a tightrope between encouraging the "dictator" to be sensitive to the group, and allowing whiners and bullies to undermine the formal distribution of authority in favor of social pressure. When you move to group consensus you've yanked out the tightrope entirely.

So mainly what I see in the Forge-inspired games--on this point--is more of a need to assume that the group is already on the same page...or a willingness to accept that people are going to drop out if they don't fit in (instead of hanging on pathetically hoping for a moment of fun)...and if you've got either of those, then "Fiat" isn't an issue.

Quote from: lukeRPGs aren't special. There is simply this ingrained tradition to build rules in a certain fashion. Is successful by default -- because that was the only way it was done. Only now are the basic assumptions that make up roleplaying game being seriously questioned.

*Don't bring sports into this.

Well, that's the thing. RPGs are special. And why exclude sports? Because they use referees? But the analogy of GM to referee is quite apt, under certain styles of RPG play. Even more might be an analogy to the producers of a TV quiz show: they write the questions and judge the answers; however, they aren't in competition with the contestants.

Quote from: lukeThanatos, Spike. Are you insisting that RPGs are special in regards to games?* And that they need special rules and situations that seem good enough for every other type of game.

*Don't bring sports into this.

Not at all. What I am saying, though, is that games vary.
Monopoly has win conditions.
D&D 3.5 does not have win conditions.
Some role-playing games have win conditions.

One might consider a Venn Diagram or something. I know I'm thinking of one, though I'm really too tired to whip one up for us, and I trust you to see what I'm  what I'm getting at here.

So, ok, we have games with win conditions and games without win conditions, right? (Set Win Conditions, anyhow. Some games have player-set win conditions, dig? We can chat about win conditions later, if you like, since I believe it's an importantpart of the indie gaming movement.

Now, you've got role-playing games (RPGs here on out). The extent that any game is a role-playing game is a bit of a sliding scale, but chiefly we have a general understanding of what we're talking about. (I trust everyone to read this in good faith and not, say, bring up the hoary chestnut that is 'role-playing chess'.)

Your RPG may have win conditions. It may not.
It may have a GM (game master. other terms may apply, I felt this was suitably generic).  It may not.

In games with a GM, the GM may be a 'player' (in that he or she takes up the role of characters with agendas - NPCs - that the GM attempts to manifest for any number of reasons) or the GM may simply exist to render rulings. (Player/not). In games where the GM is a player, s/he may exist to undermind PCs, support PCs, or both.

So now we've got three scales that may be considered rough on/off switches. (Gray areas exist, but...)
In games where the RPG is like Monopoly, you have players. One player is the banker, but the banker has no special game authority. This is where you seem to be coming from, Luke. In Burning Wheel, the GM plays by the rules. Because s/he's given license to play with the gloves off, s/he's obligated to follow the rules, because otherwise there's a serious conflict of interests.

But not all games follow that line of thinking. That's not how they're played. I believe there's a right way to DM and a wrong way. Others may disagree, but in a game like D&D where there is a GM who is not a player and who is not antagonistic to the PCs, the right way to GM is to play the game according to its set-up internal logic. If the group is good, and the GM is doing it right, everyone has agreed to this.

This is pretty much listed in the rules of D&D, but maybe not every RPG. However, the GM has no reason to be biased for or against the PCs. It's a Sim GM. S/he uses the game's internal logic. There are world rules the GM is expected to follow.

This can break down. It ought to be listed specifically.
I don't know why sports are a special case, except that they're between two groups of PCs with a ref. Sports are not a worse analogy then Monopoly, but they are still not a good one.

Did I enhance the discourse? I don't want to go any further without feedback. I assure you I am reading in good faith with an attempt to further meaningful communication. If I'm more pendenic then I need to be, well, it's because I just finished my Lit class (and my degree! Yay!) and have been writing essays. I tried to unpack that writing style, but I think I failed.