Following on from the narrative thread, due to the success of FATE, X-World, etc... it's clear that there are a lot of people who like authorship in their roleplay, and very clear there's a lot of current game designers who do also. (I think they fall on their face when, like Ron Edwards, or Robin Laws, they assume that's what going on in their head is what's going on in mine, whether I realize it or not, but that's a different thread.)

In fact, I think for some people, there is always that "meta-layer" there, always the 4th wall aspect, the dual layer of playing the character and playing the game and making conscious decisions from both.  Now I realize that since we all are playing a game, unless we possess Daniel Day Lewis powers, we all have a dual layer, but for many of us, the whole point of roleplaying is to put aside that second layer, let it merge into the background and make decisions only from the point of view of the character.

Take for example this exchange that happened a few years ago.  We're talking about Immersion.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;567899I do EXACTLY the same thing. For example, when one of my characters is in a bar fight in a western town, I see the tables and chairs, I smell the beer, I hear the sound of broken glass, I'm THERE. Whatever makes sense to visualize.

But what happens when I go behind the bar and grab the shotgun? Wait, WHAT shotgun? The shotgun which I ASSUME WILL BE PRESENT in a western bar where fights tend to break out. And if a shotgun ISN'T present, it needlessly disrupts my immersion, just as it would if the GM suddenly corrected me and said the bar's walls were painted hot pink.

For immersion to work, you have to allow players to make assumptions based on their character's PoV which are valid in the shared fiction. But most GMs I've played with haven't gotten the hang of this yet. Nor have most systems.

And my response...emphasis added.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567974Immersion into what, exactly?

You see, your character can certainly assume there's a shotgun behind the bar and most of the time, he'd be right.  But are you roleplaying in a montage of Tombstone, Silverado, or Big Whiskey Montana, or are you roleplaying in this particular town, in this particular bar?

Because in the Songbird Saloon in the town of Jerusalem Falls, Ol' Clem Johnson who owns the place is one of those rare Christians who walks the walk.  He asked himself once "Who would Jesus shoot?" and the answer was "No one."  So Clem doesn't have a shotgun behind the bar, not even to defend himself.  Now his old buddy Jack, who plays the piano, however, isn't that much of a "turn the cheek" kind of person, and so he keeps a shotgun up under the piano keyboard where he can get to it.

This is stuff you'd find out if you were from this town, or spent time talking to it's inhabitants, but if you are some low-down, four-flushin' sumbitch outlander just off the range who thinks he's gonna shoot himself out of gettin' caught cheatin' at poker, by grabbin' Clem's gun?  Well, you're in a whole lot of trouble.  Welcome to a Living World, where it might just not be Hollywood.

I'm not going to claim that Anon isn't as "immersed" as I, or John Morrow, who was Anon was responding to, can be, but into what is he immersed? It seems pretty clear, he's immersed into an expression of a genre.  In other words, once he finds out "Western", his brain fills in the rest.  He's not immersed into the world at the table, he's immersed into the world of westerns in his head, of which the table is one expression.  If my character jumps behind the bar and looks for a weapon and there isn't one, my character thinks "Fuck", and I move on.  For Anon, the immersion stops because his player assumption based on genre disagrees with what happened at the table.  It seems to me the whole "narrative movement" with specific mechanics to reinforce that playstyle are there to make sure that immersion doesn't stop for anyone playing that way, because the mechanics are there to smooth over discrepancies between visions of what is happening. A whole lot of people play this way I think, hell they may even be the majority for all I know or care.  All I know is...I don't.  I don't play in literary genres, I play in worlds that are alternate universes, that could be just as real as ours.  They have their own physics and cosmology and while some things are the same as ours, others aren't.  

How do you roleplay?

I roleplay the way you, CRKrueger, describe. I might expect a shotgun behind the bar, but it isn't going to break anything if there isn't. (Some gunshops have shop guns placed in different places. Other gunshops, the staff all carries. It just depends.)

My players play the same way as you and I. Except, they may decide it would be fun to paint the walls of the bar pink, and have an in-character reason for this that fits their characters and the story. (Hmm. Didn't Clint Eastwood do that in one movie?)

But I think for the other people, that's part of the draw to shared narrative control--they can make those decisions/changes. I don't like it because to me it takes the fun out of solving the problem by using hand waving or technobabble (hello ST:TNG).

So for example... If I'm playing a non-narrative mechanic game, and the player says, 'Bubba dives behind the bar and grabs the shotgun!' - and unbeknownst to him, for whatever reason (i.e. my fiat) there isn't one. Then there isn't one. I might give him an assortment of options - a head-cracker, a bottle or whatever I think Clem might really keep behind the bar. Maybe nothing.


But if I'm running Savage Worlds or Fantasy Craft, and the player says, 'Bubba dives behind the bar and gets a shotgun! I blow my CraftyPointBenny!!!' - then I judged the situation, and if it's reasonable I'll roll with the flow and make a mental note (in case it comes up later*) why Clem, a God-fearing, church-going bar-man who hates firearms has a shotgun behind his bar on this particular day, and let it ride! Game on.

If the player does the same thing and says "I come up with a gatling-gun and start spraying." then I'll simply veto that as something beyond the scope of the situation... unless I REALLY want to make something of it (remember the asterisk?)...

* - So the asterisk. I love to let players do things in the game that lets their characters shine especially when it's extemporaneous. I adjust the world on the fly to make it look completely seamless. This creates immersion in my games. Case in point - later on after the shotgun gets used I come up with a plot-thread that relates however tenuously to WHY that shotgun was there in the first place. Or what if I mix both ideas - the player goes for a shotgun, blows a meta-die, and I say fuck it "you reach up for a shotgun... and you see this brand new, oiled, gatling gun with a box of clips next to it." Why is it there? Who knows? I'll figure it out later. The game is unfolding and it's ON.

Does the damn thing even work? Even if it doesn't - it might be enough to scare the shit out of the people he was gonna kill. WTF is Clem into? The PC's don't know, but you'll make the reason. Immersion happens when you keep the players engaged. Meta-point mechanics, imo, are equally useful for a good GM as they are for players who are simply just playing.

Keeping them immersed is letting shit fly within reason, and doing it confidently.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860183Following on from the narrative thread, due to the success of FATE, X-World, etc... it's clear that there are a lot of people who like authorship in their roleplay, and very clear there's a lot of current game designers who do also. (I think they fall on their face when, like Ron Edwards, or Robin Laws, they assume that's what going on in their head is what's going on in mine, whether I realize it or not, but that's a different thread.)

In fact, I think for some people, there is always that "meta-layer" there, always the 4th wall aspect, the dual layer of playing the character and playing the game and making conscious decisions from both.  Now I realize that since we all are playing a game, unless we possess Daniel Day Lewis powers, we all have a dual layer, but for many of us, the whole point of roleplaying is to put aside that second layer, let it merge into the background and make decisions only from the point of view of the character.

Take for example this exchange that happened a few years ago.  We're talking about Immersion.


And my response...emphasis added.


I'm not going to claim that Anon isn't as "immersed" as I, or John Morrow, who was Anon was responding to, can be, but into what is he immersed? It seems pretty clear, he's immersed into an expression of a genre.  In other words, once he finds out "Western", his brain fills in the rest.  He's not immersed into the world at the table, he's immersed into the world of westerns in his head, of which the table is one expression.  If my character jumps behind the bar and looks for a weapon and there isn't one, my character thinks "Fuck", and I move on.  For Anon, the immersion stops because his player assumption based on genre disagrees with what happened at the table.  It seems to me the whole "narrative movement" with specific mechanics to reinforce that playstyle are there to make sure that immersion doesn't stop for anyone playing that way, because the mechanics are there to smooth over discrepancies between visions of what is happening. A whole lot of people play this way I think, hell they may even be the majority for all I know or care.  All I know is...I don't.  I don't play in literary genres, I play in worlds that are alternate universes, that could be just as real as ours.  They have their own physics and cosmology and while some things are the same as ours, others aren't.  

How do you roleplay?

I guess my view is both of these seem like viable worlds to role-play in. For me what matters is going in, I have a sense of what kind of universe we are meant to be in. If the "physics" of that world are more like our own (so a western that is set in the historical frontier) I'd have expectations like Krueger's. If the GM had gone in saying this was going to be a world more like a spaghetti western then I would probably expect to see things in the genre and for genre conventions to predominate (i'd also probably expect mechanics that allow for badass gunslingers who can take out a bunch of guys rather than mechanics where you die just as easily as Henchmen #2). I think though for me it is still important that these be worlds and that I have to interact with it through my character, as my character. Genre emulation is something I enjoy but I also like a more gritty historical type game too.

Quote from: tenbones;860190So for example... If I'm playing a non-narrative mechanic game, and the player says, 'Bubba dives behind the bar and grabs the shotgun!' - and unbeknownst to him, for whatever reason (i.e. my fiat) there isn't one. Then there isn't one. I might give him an assortment of options - a head-cracker, a bottle or whatever I think Clem might really keep behind the bar. Maybe nothing.


But if I'm running Savage Worlds or Fantasy Craft, and the player says, 'Bubba dives behind the bar and gets a shotgun! I blow my CraftyPointBenny!!!' - then I judged the situation, and if it's reasonable I'll roll with the flow and make a mental note (in case it comes up later*) why Clem, a God-fearing, church-going bar-man who hates firearms has a shotgun behind his bar on this particular day, and let it ride! Game on.

If the player does the same thing and says "I come up with a gatling-gun and start spraying." then I'll simply veto that as something beyond the scope of the situation... unless I REALLY want to make something of it (remember the asterisk?)...

* - So the asterisk. I love to let players do things in the game that lets their characters shine especially when it's extemporaneous. I adjust the world on the fly to make it look completely seamless. This creates immersion in my games. Case in point - later on after the shotgun gets used I come up with a plot-thread that relates however tenuously to WHY that shotgun was there in the first place. Or what if I mix both ideas - the player goes for a shotgun, blows a meta-die, and I say fuck it "you reach up for a shotgun... and you see this brand new, oiled, gatling gun with a box of clips next to it." Why is it there? Who knows? I'll figure it out later. The game is unfolding and it's ON.

Does the damn thing even work? Even if it doesn't - it might be enough to scare the shit out of the people he was gonna kill. WTF is Clem into? The PC's don't know, but you'll make the reason. Immersion happens when you keep the players engaged. Meta-point mechanics, imo, are equally useful for a good GM as they are for players who are simply just playing.

Keeping them immersed is letting shit fly within reason, and doing it confidently.

For me, if there's a mechanic I can use to enforce my will on the setting, there is no immersion.  I don't want to immerse in my head, I can do that whenever I want.  I want to immerse into something else, "play pretend" for lack of a better word in an alternate world where the challenges are real, the gloves are off, and I live or die by my choices and the roll of the dice.

If it turns out my guy is like the Viking from 13th Warrior who takes a critical to the ribs and can't run any more, so stands to hold the way and dies with his sword in his hand, then by god so be it.  I don't need any mechanical bonus because I'm playing to genre.  I'm going to Valhalla, and if the rest of the guys survive, my name will live on through tales of what happened.  I'm happy.

I guess the thing is, I never say "I jump behind the bar and grab the shotgun." because I'm not immersing in the assumptions in my head.  I say "I jump behind the bar, and look for a weapon." because my character doesn't know whether there is one or not, he hopes there is, but I'm immersed in the reality of the setting, which is not subject to my whims.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860194I guess the thing is, I never say "I jump behind the bar and grab the shotgun." because I'm not immersing in the assumptions in my head.  I say "I jump behind the bar, and look for a weapon." because my character doesn't know whether there is one or not, he hopes there is, but I'm immersed in the reality of the setting, which is not subject to my whims.

I tend to feel the same way. I guess if I am really confident there is a shotgun there I might phrase it as 'I jump behind the counter and grab the shotgun' but if we're talking about me being able to edit the shot gun in just because I think it ought to be there, then that would mess with me a bit. But I am not sure this has anything to do with things being narrative or whatnot. I think it is more about I tend to see things from my character's point of view and I find it odd when a character the ability to decide things that for me just should be up to the GM (otherwise I think I feel like I am not exploring a real world).

Quote from: CRKrueger;860183How do you roleplay?

I'm all about literary and genre emulation. I love my cheap, escapist genre fiction and gaming is for me is a way to celebrate and revel in this. The game isn't about winning, it's about winning with flair. Hell even losing with flair is preferable to succeeding with dull, cold efficiency.

That doesn't mean I'm necessarily playing all these new, cool games. From Ghostbusters to TSR Marvel Super Heroes, there are plenty of oldies whose rules directed you towards playing the genre.

The notion that player may formally or informally assuming to a degree the sort editorial powers that normally confined to the GM is not a new thing. It's pretty much been a constant in all my gaming career. It works for me.

I don't think out gaming preferences are compatible. I'm OK with that if you are.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860194I guess the thing is, I never say "I jump behind the bar and grab the shotgun." because I'm not immersing in the assumptions in my head.  I say "I jump behind the bar, and look for a weapon." because my character doesn't know whether there is one or not, he hopes there is, but I'm immersed in the reality of the setting, which is not subject to my whims.

I realize the natural question is, "Don't you use Luck Points?"  Yes and No. It depends.  In systems like WFRP1 or SR1-3 where they have actual setting rationale, sure I use them and don't really think about it.  
Luck Points in RQ6 bother me a little bit, they're definitely a "player chooses when the character is awesome" type of OOC mechanic.  I'd remove them, and most of my players don't care, we're deciding whether we want to keep them or not.  
I've been putzing around with Savage Worlds, the very large combats it can handle are a draw, but the narrative levels of being (Extra, Wild Card) and some of the more egregious examples of Bennie use are pure fingernails on chalkboard, unfortunately, once you start messing with SW, you mess with the speed, which is the whole point of playing the damn thing.

Quote from: Soylent Green;860198I'm all about literary and genre emulation. I love my cheap, escapist genre fiction and gaming is for me is a way to celebrate and revel in this. The game isn't about winning, it's about winning with flair. Hell even losing with flair is preferable to succeeding with dull, cold efficiency.

Me too.

But its cool if there's no shotgun behind the bar sometimes. Its fun to be surprised too.

Quote from: Soylent Green;860198
I don't think out gaming preferences are compatible. I'm OK with that if you are.

How does it go? You fish your side. I'll fish my side. Nobody fish the middle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chaubunagungamaug

Quote from: Soylent Green;860198The notion that player may formally or informally assuming to a degree the sort editorial powers that normally confined to the GM is not a new thing. It's pretty much be a constant in all my gaming career. It works for me.

I don't think out gaming preferences are compatible. I'm OK with that if you are.

I agree, I think people have always played that way.  I think the realization that some people do and some don't is what started the whole Dramatist discussions on Usenet.

I'm perfectly fine with you playing your way and me playing mine.  The only issue I've ever had is that my way of playing also allows yours, albeit without mechanical enforcement.  Your way of playing, with a newer system designed with mechanical enforcement, precludes my way of playing if those mechanics can't be easily excised.  Even then, that's not really a problem. Unfortunately the game companies who are functioning as licensing warehouses these days like FFG, MWP and Modiphius use exactly those types of systems placing perennial classics like Star Wars, Marvel and Conan "behind the Narrative Wall".

The idea that one's "immersion" is ruined because their ability to auto-create shit they expect into the scene sounds a bit like horseshit. Anon's putting his own version of events at the forefront, and fuck everyone else. Unless you're running one-on-one with the GM, and this is coll with them, then whatever you've got in mind don't make it necessarily so.

We go with what the GM presents to us. And none of us auto-narrate ambient shit into the scene unless we're asked to do, or there's a mechanism in the rules. If I want character immersion, I'll join the cast of a play. But for a game, I have plenty enough imagination to paint pictures in conjunction with others, and not feel let down when my carefully layered head-scene is disrupted because I didn't get what I wanted. Put it simply, no one narrates shit into a scene that isn't there. You wanna ask if there's a shotgun there, maybe there is, maybe there ain't. But damned if I'm gonna let you just put whatever the fuck you want there because it tickles your fancy. Your image of things is no more valid than anyone else's. And if I designed the vessel you're sailing in, in this case, in the form of a saloon, then I'll decide whether that shotgun is there or not. I'll probably let you have it, if it makes sense for the narrative. But you and your immersion should probably go join an improv troupe--we're just playing a game (that obviously immersion person's fragile psyche cannot handle).

Quote from: CRKrueger;860203
I'm perfectly fine with you playing your way and me playing mine.  The only issue I've ever had is that my way of playing also allows yours, albeit without mechanical enforcement.  Your way of playing, with a newer system designed with mechanical enforcement, precludes my way of playing if those mechanics can't be easily excised.

What I ran into while reading lots of different rules is that the game balance often depends on the narrative mechanics, which I find annoying. In this case, the mechanics I refer to are the "points" by whatever name that players use in combat to reroll, recover HP, do extra damage, etc. A lot of reviews mention for a lot of those games the GM needs to hand out lots of them to keep the players alive.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860183Following on from the narrative thread, due to the success of FATE, X-World, etc... it's clear that there are a lot of people who like authorship in their roleplay, and very clear there's a lot of current game designers who do also. (I think they fall on their face when, like Ron Edwards, or Robin Laws, they assume that's what going on in their head is what's going on in mine, whether I realize it or not, but that's a different thread.)

From my experience in running LARPS, MMORPGS, and Tabletop RPG campaigns there are certain constants that are found in 90% of the players. One of them is to play the character they imagine in their head. Which is why RPGs with a lot of detailed mechanics continue to exist.

The constant in this case is that most players want to be the hero. Mind you the "hero" in this case is highly subjective and doesn't really adhere to a particular stereotype. It is more the ultimate fulfillment of whatever image the player has of his character.

It hard to see how you get to be the hero when the campaign plays out more like a virtual reality. It like the guy who plays a LARP but can't hit with a boffer weapon or a beanbag spell packet for shit. Or a MMORPG gamer who reflexes and tactical skill are shit.

Everybody has a passing familiarity with storytelling and authorship. So Narrative control has a seductive appeal to player who finally wants make his character the hero.

The other half is artistic snobbery. There are people who define themselves as rebels against the status quo. Since the status quo are pen & paper virtual realities. Where the essence of the game is kitbashing shit together to make something that is fun. You rebel by injecting the idea of the narrative. That particpants are not goofy gamers but serious authors pursuit of THE story.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860183unless we possess Daniel Day Lewis powers, we all have a dual layer, but for many of us, the whole point of roleplaying is to put aside that second layer, let it merge into the background and make decisions only from the point of view of the character.

I have found that the only minimum required for serious immersion is that the player act as if he there as the character even if the character is just a reflection of himself in the setting. If they act as a different personality and find it fun great! But it is not necessary and for some I would go as far to say it is not desirable.

Quote from: cranebump;860211The idea that one's "immersion" is ruined because their ability to auto-create shit they expect into the scene sounds a bit like horseshit. Anon's putting his own version of events at the forefront, and fuck everyone else.

I just flat out don't want to Play or run a game where Players get to alter the setting in that manner. Partially because my prejudice is that they're always going to be altering it in their favor, "I dive behind the bar and grab the shotgun" not "I dive behind the bar and get cut to ribbons on broken glass"... it just ends up feeling like I'm watching the Players masturbate over their imagined 'cool moves'.
I can sit around all day and describe how everything goes my way, just as I expect it too... but IMO that's fucking dull... for me there needs to be mystery and risk... that when I attempt to jump on top of the giant vampire rabbit there aren't any 'fate points' or whatnot ensuring my ass will come out unscathed.