Quote from: somegamerThis is a great point. Could we talk about the difference between the "player empowerment" that seems to be getting a drubbing in this thread versus "contributing creatively?" To me, "player empowerment" means the player can say things like "oh! It'd be awesome if he's my ex-boyfriend!" or "I'd like a scene where I confront him with this information." I also enjoy player empowerment that allows them to narrate the result of their actions, once the dice have determined degree of success. For example, the dice say I'm mostly, defeated by the masked swordsman. I narrate that he kicks my ass, but I get a slash in that partially reveals his face. Another good example of player empowerment is the ability to create a "kicker" that describes what just happened in your PC's life to launch the action. But all of these sound like things the "can't find a name for their characters" players would find overwhelming.

."

As a GM I have a problem with that.  You, as a player, may not realize that I, the GM, have already invested a great deal of effort into making that masked swordsman someone 'kewl' to be discovered.  YOU think it's cool to 'johnny on the spot' make him your Ex, which is great for you, not so great for the GM and probably not all that terribly interesting for the other players at the table.

Sure, I can understand that you might want to be able to say 'Hey, it'd be cool if my Ex was involved with this mysterious plot'.  As a GM I should be paying attention to the subtle and not so subtle clues that let me realize you want that... but then it remains up to me to actually put that Ex in there.

In my personal 'gaming manifesto'... which I really need to track down and repost somewhere... I establish where I think the lines are best drawn. As a player you can create a character, and attach a whole host of NPC's to that character (family, lovers, allies, minions, bosses and enemies...) but the NPC's ultimately belong to the GM. Not the player.  That doesn't suit you? Well, obviously you aren't one of my players so who cares?

Quote from: GrimJestaTo clarify, how so? Basically, I'm asking what these methods encouraged by WW are.

Heavy railroading by the GM, with a bit of "No matter which way they go, put the contact there" and a bit of "How to force them back into your story if they escape".  It's faded a bit from the practical advice of recent books, but it's still nicely visible in the "Your Story is Leeet!" rhetoric that opens a couple of chapters.

Nothing that can't be ignored if you know to do so or just have good instincts; in my experience, a fair few WW gamers ignore it almost by instinct in their actual play, taking the rhetoric as kind of "pep talk babble" or some similar thing.

However, said advice has caused a lot of arguments (some at the table), and given at least a few groups that tried to buy into it honestly some really shitty play.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHeavy railroading by the GM, with a bit of "No matter which way they go, put the contact there" and a bit of "How to force them back into your story if they escape".  It's faded a bit from the practical advice of recent books, but it's still nicely visible in the "Your Story is Leeet!" rhetoric that opens a couple of chapters.

Nothing that can't be ignored if you know to do so or just have good instincts; in my experience, a fair few WW gamers ignore it almost by instinct in their actual play, taking the rhetoric as kind of "pep talk babble" or some similar thing.

However, said advice has caused a lot of arguments (some at the table), and given at least a few groups that tried to buy into it honestly some really shitty play.

I remember in college (where WW was all the rage with the local gaming scene) where I introduced the idea to a pure-WW player-turned-GM that it was not necessary to railroad players along a pre-defined story.

He really didn't comprehend what I was saying at first.  He took it for granted that heavy railroading was just part of running the games because that's how he interpreted the rulebooks to say that's how the games were supposed to be played.  You could literally see the veil coming off of his eyes when I explained the concept to him.

Now, one anecdotal piece of evidence is less than worthless, but I do have to say that I've only experienced this phenomenon with pure-WW players.

QuoteBut once the system requires that everyone do something or not do something, you can't have that variety between different players in the same game. And that's the problem with "coherent" games that only support only a single style of play or agenda or games that want to push, pull, or force players to play a certain way to improve them. Everyone has to play one way or not play at all.

Ok, so you have a mixture of players. I'm lucky living in a big city where I can pick and choose who I play with, but I know not everyone has that option. I guess what frustrates me is that it seems like the players interested in a different playstyle are, from the tone of this thread, being told to suck it up. It's not intuitively obvious to me why just controlling your own PC's immediate actions is the "default." In other words, if some players want something a little more "empowering," why can't you change up the game for a session or two just to try it out? Why is this so awful and threatening? Once again, if EVERYONE is happy, no need.

However, if the GM is sick of coming up with detailed plots that take him hours to prepare, if some of the players want more input in how the plot starts or plays out, or if some people just want a change of pace, why not do a one-shot of something different?

QuoteAs a GM I have a problem with that. You, as a player, may not realize that I, the GM, have already invested a great deal of effort into making that masked swordsman someone 'kewl' to be discovered. YOU think it's cool to 'johnny on the spot' make him your Ex, which is great for you, not so great for the GM and probably not all that terribly interesting for the other players at the table.

1. Every "player empowerment" game I've ever played has negotiation tactics that allow you temper (or ignore) player input. For instance, with the masked swordsman, you may say, "ok, but you only get to see one eye." Moreover, since you invested so much into this "kewl" fellow, what are you going to do if the dice go insane and I kill his ass? One of my personal frustrations with strongly pre-plotted games in the past were that I always seemed to kill a crucial NPC. Story games tend to be able to roll with or re-negotiate these punches better.

2. From your tone, it sounds like you've encountered similar attempts from players before. The alternatives are to tell them to shut up and stop stepping on your GMing toes or find ways to accommodate their contributions. Such as player empowerment mechanics.

3. The other players' interest will totally depend on what the other players are interested in, won't it? If they like tough moral decisions, they'll cheer when I introduce a complication like that. If they just want to kill things and take their stuff, well they're not entertaining me, either are they? Man, heterogeneous playstyle groups can be tough to balance. But going one way or another permanently isn't exactly fair, either.

QuoteI write "ailing grandma" on my character sheet, thus announcing I "want" grandma to come up in the game at some point.

Christ, it is awful when the GMs try to play to your interests, isn't it? Usually, a key like that would include information like "that I'm very close to"-- showing that putting her at risk will motivate your character. I guess the GM could just say "you have an ailing grandmother that your very close to-- won't you take the job for her operation?," but this feels a little rail-roady to me.

Here's the deal, I object to the title of this thread, "The Truth about Players." Players aren't some monolithic group that all want the same things. I object to the argument that boils down to "story games are dumb and evil because MY group wouldn't like to play like that." I object to the categorization of "players" as some separate less-creative group than "GMs," and that none of them want any more creative input. I, like many other story-gamers, have a sneaking suspicion that there are people out there playing and GMing traditional games (most having fun!) that may also enjoy story games. However, many or them haven't heard of them or have bought the "swine" hype.

To sum up:
1. Most story games take less prep time for the players (like 5 questions, not a sheet of stats) and a lot less prep time for the GM.
2. "Player empowerment" isn't about taking power away from the GM to run the show, it's about giving players approved routes to insert their ideas in a non-disruptive way. I've seen plenty of "but what if they did X!," but that's usually why there are games with specialized mechanics about it, to prevent game-killing moves.
3. I'm not sure how it's "implicit" in the story games that rpgpundit's read that the players get to play whoever they want. Most of the games I've read have been explicit in making it a group process, with connections between the PCs, or at least reasons for them to be sharing a goal, with the goal of everyone (including the GM) feeling like the group makes sense. The others have been implicit about this. Perhaps we're reading vagueness in opposite directions.
4. I agree there should be more "incoherent" (what a dumb term) games that accommodate different playstyles for the mixed group, which is the reality for most people in the hobby.
5. In the meantime, let's accept that there are many forms of fun, and try not to deny the validity of each other's existence.

Quote from: jgantsI remember in college (where WW was all the rage with the local gaming scene) where I introduced the idea to a pure-WW player-turned-GM that it was not necessary to railroad players along a pre-defined story.

He really didn't comprehend what I was saying at first.  He took it for granted that heavy railroading was just part of running the games because that's how he interpreted the rulebooks to say that's how the games were supposed to be played.  You could literally see the veil coming off of his eyes when I explained the concept to him.

Now, one anecdotal piece of evidence is less than worthless, but I do have to say that I've only experienced this phenomenon with pure-WW players.

I've seen this happen as well, and not with White Wolf players. "Story trumps everything" rhetoric was one of the things I ran into a lot with the various D&D groups I met at college; the other was general "But that's the way it is and has to be" based on the books (not quite rules lawyering...because it wasn't always in the books.)

Quote from: somegamerChrist, it is awful when the GMs try to play to your interests, isn't it?

No, it is socially awkward to try to play to my interests in this mechanistic fashion, and it's coercive to boot. I prefer to figure out my interests in my own sweet time, not before the game but while actually playing it, based on experiences and situations encountered there which none of us, player or GM, foresaw at the outset.

Quote from: jgantsNow, one anecdotal piece of evidence is less than worthless, but I do have to say that I've only experienced this phenomenon with pure-WW players.

The few "honest buy-ins with related, crappy play" I've seen?  Yeah, that right there is what I meant.

I've seen it outside of WW-purists, too; just not as often.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere are two ways to create characters: In the first, you as the GM say "ok here are the boundaries, you fill in the blanks within these boundaries".  In the second, the player makes up whatever the fuck he wants to unless it bumps into a major conflict for your plans for the campaign, and you adjust accordingly.

I've had play that acts like the second but is really the first in disguise; in other words, the GM has a narrowly defined set of boundaries in his head,but doesn't tell you what they are. "WHat kind of character should I make?" "Just make anything." "OK, here's my guy, with a specific niche and motivations." "OK, well, the campaign idea I have really has no room for that concept to do its thing; good luck trying to play enjoyably in spite of that." (That last statement was made, not explicitly--I could've just changed my character!--but over time, through play events, nicely shielding the GM from ever admitting that that's what he was doing. Ugh.)

Dysfunctional? You bet. Common or prevalent? God,I hope not. But it's happened to me more than once.

Quote from: RPGPunditMilder but still a serious issue is the fact that in several new games the idea of FORCING the players to create detailed backgrounds of their own for their characters (something that, as I've pointed out here, most players don't actually enjoy doing), and then forcing the GM to accept those backgrounds with limits on what he's allowed to veto, has been slowly creeping in.

Really? Wow. What games?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Ian NobleI can't wait until they start building death-camps for you damn story-gamers so that we traditional-game folk can achieve narrative purity.

You said "Narrative." To the deathcamps with you!

Sorry for the posting blitzkrieg,everyone; I'm catching up on the thread a bit.

Quote from: RPGPunditI wouldn't be so sure.  One of the big eye-openers for me in my recent time as a GM was running the Legion campaign.  In this campaign; I essentially told each of my players which superhero they were playing, what his origin was, what his personality was basically like.

[SNIP]

And as it turned out, my players LOVED it. They loved the structure that this gave them, and the ability to make the superhero their own, with their own characteristics and emphasis WITHIN the boundaries of the traditional hero's profile.  It was kind of like taking an existing character (say, James Bond, Dr.Who, Captain Kirk, whatever) and giving it to a new actor. He had to follow the context of that character, but he also could try to make it his own within the boundaries of that recognized character.

So. . .you're fine with constraints that you like, and down on constraints you don't like. Which is, kinda, everyone's feeling on this kind of thing. It's a huge leap from there to "WAR!" But whatever.

I agree that it's a fascinating and underexplored corner of gaming. You tried it, and it worked, and everyone went "cool! this is fun!" Strangely enough, nobody cried out "Away with your pretentious microgame, swine! Give us a real RPG!" Huh. I guess a constrained situation (like where you all play loyalty-divided Samurai on their way to kill a sorceror, or religious gun-toting circuit judges) can make for exciting play if all the players buy into it and pour all their creativity into the game. So if you're looking for that kind of constrained experience, you might check out a game specifically designed to do that well ("OK, tonight you're all the abused minions of a diabolical Master.") or tweak an existing constrained game to serve your needs ("Tonight you're all the terror-stricken slaves of a mad necromantic Pharaoh."),or just roll out a constrained scenario with an existing, more broadly applicable game (as you did with LoSH). They're all good and interesting options--I'd love to play an all-Paladin/Cleric or all-Thief/Assassin game of D&D sometime.

Now,you may not like any of the games I referenced above. You may in fact loathe them. That's fine. I'm just saying that it's the same kind of thing you're talking about (and not new either; Marvel Super-heroes and I presume DC Heroes have supported "Play these characters, in this general situation" gaming for years), even if you hate those particular appllications of the idea. Which is fair enough, really.

I think there's something else going on with this tread,too, slightly related to the above: You set the initial tenor of the discussion in your OP, and people are following that pattern perhaps a little unconsciously. For instance, Somegamer's talking about players not ponying up creative input, and people are like, "Aha! There's that snide assumption that trad players aren't creative!" But the fact is, she's responding to your initial portrait of players who can't even name their character; that seems to be a fair target for "they're not contributing creatively to the game." Hell, that misunderstanding ain't not even your fault, Pundit; I just think the discussion is becoming polarized by a lack of contextual awareness on some folks' parts.

Peace,
-Joel

PS Somegamer: welcome to the site!

OK, one more:

Quote from: WarthurDon't forget, in Dogs In the Vineyard the GM is not allowed to make the call on whether the PCs did the morally right thing in driving the moral blight out of the town; the players can lynch the morally-upright mayor who never put a finger wrong and leave the openly demon-worshipping heretics alone and declare the problem solved if they want.

I just wanted to point out that yeah, the Dogs can judge any way they want to, but that just means that they can't be called into account for "playing wrong," like the old "That's not how a Lawful Good character would act!" debate. In Dogs, the player is saying, "hell yes that's how this Lawful Good character acts,"and the interesting question then becomes "why?" And the answer can be anything from "This Dog has really become a monster (Lawful Evil?); he's going with the brutal no-fuss solution because nobody can condemn him," to "It's the Steward's fault his charges went off track; it's a ruthless solution but the only way to get the town out of its mess." The guy COULD be just being an asshat: "Look! I'm doing this because the game says I can! Next I'll shoot all of YOU and defecate on the Book of Life!" But then we're back to that player investment thing, which is required for any game to work.

Also, the Dogs players do NOT get to declare reality or override your GM background facts.Here's a post from Vincent Baker correcting me in no uncertain terms on whether the players can contradict the facts I've prepared for the town. Short answer: They can't. "The only power the players have to judge or decide anything, anything at all, bindingly, is by having their characters act and then backing it up with dice."

Just like every RPG ever.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, it is socially awkward to try to play to my interests in this mechanistic fashion, and it's coercive to boot. I prefer to figure out my interests in my own sweet time, not before the game but while actually playing it, based on experiences and situations encountered there which none of us, player or GM, foresaw at the outset.

So you embrace immersion then, right?  Please note, I'm just trying to get where you're coming from, not trying to oppress or label you.

Quote from: John MorrowEveryone has to play one way or not play at all.

Your argument is nonsense.  Something like D&D presents just as coherent (rigid is better description here).

In D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds.  If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

Quote from: Ian NobleSo you embrace immersion then, right?  Please note, I'm just trying to get where you're coming from, not trying to oppress or label you.

No, if "immersion" means some kind of miraculous fusion of player and PC to the point of forgetting who you are yourself.

Yes, if it means interacting with the gameworld through the PC's perspective, very much including nonknowledge of upcoming events.

And furthermore, traditional-model games aim for the problem-solver players -- those who had nothing to the mix creatively or socially.

Is that stuff necessary for a "roleplaying game"?

No.  Problem-solving is a valid form of play.  I'm not mediocritizing it.  I think those players would have more fun (and do) in World of Warcraft, but that's for another discussion.

Story-games aim for creatively-inclined and social players.

It seems as though trad-model players like those that frequent these forums are pissed and angry that their hobby now has let the "cool kids" in.

Let me tell you, from someone who runs a convention now dominated by story-gamers (Strategicon in Los Angeles), these aren't cool kids.  They're just as dorky and foolish and fun and moody as everyone else.  They're just looking for another player style.

Are story-gamers often insufferable?  Oh, god yes.  Just as insufferable as grognards who rules-lawyer.

But denying their play-style and demonizing them says more about trad-model gamers' maturity than story-gamers' attitudes.

Live and let live.  

For me, you can take my trad-model, GM-centric games out of my cold, dead hands.  I'll never give them up for GM-less improv acting games.  However, I'm ripping things out of story-games and using them as spice to my trad-model meal; to be sure, it's making my games better!  

It's just a matter of finding others of like-mind.