Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

[-E.]

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.

Very nicely said. I was trying to find ways to say this, and then your post came along.

Although I think even this scenario is over-optimistic: does anyone think that groups don't ignore the rules and over-ride-with-fiat of even indie games when it suites them?

I'd bet money that people do what they want in their own basements, even if the game designer would disapprove.

Cheers,
-E.

[-E.]

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.

Surely you acknowledge that there are different types of games, yes?

Compare poker to chess -- one has a large random element (poker) and the other none almost none (who gets white may be decided randomly or by... well.. fiat).

One has special roles -- at many poker tables the dealer calls the game. The other (Chess) has virtually no special roles (roles are identical except for who gets the first move).

Surely having special roles with special privileges isn't uncommon in the gaming world.

But even the special role of a ref with fiat isn't unprecedented or unique to RPG's -- wargames (of the sort played by real soldiers) have relied on human moderation since their inception. Wargames and RPGs are different animals (despite common ancestry), but neither special roles nor the role of fiat are unique to RPG's.

It's true they're not like monopoly -- but if you choose a different sample game you'll find that one can support both fiat and special roles without claiming RPG's are especially special.

Cheers,
-E.

[Pierce Inverarity]

I don't agree that making a functional game design that works as written in the books without the players having to make shit up in order for it to run is the same as "GM is always right, welcome to my world, mortals."

How not so?

Doesn't your statement imply this one: "A functional game design is one that works as written in the books only and tries hard to prevent players from making shit up on their terms"?

If not, why not?

I will say that you're hardly the worst offender--you're probably the least, actually.

But it's a real and fundamental issue. One more time I'll point to Umberto Eco on the "open" work of art as an example for what your school of design is not. You're producing "closed" games.

I understand why, and that some people may like that. But I'm going to put it on the record in this thread: This is not win-win. This is win some, lose some.

And my hunch is that the deep reason for all of that is that you guys are just too much focused on power, on its circulation among members of a group, on its being problematic by default (according to you), unless its distribution is adamantly enforced. By power.

[Abyssal Maw]

One of the reasons I think there's a disconnect here, is that there's a forgie assumption that all players enter the game as individuals (that may or may not work together, and may even be adversaries), rather than an adventuring "party". I'm neutral on this being good or bad, other than seeing it as unmanageable in the long term.

A second assumption is the one that is usually stated as "players want to create stories rather than be 'told the GM's story'." This is an ingenuous and slanderous statement statement, though. A more accurate way of describing it would be stated as the notion that "players come to roleplaying games because they want to play at being J.K. Rowling or Bob Kane.. rather than play at being Harry Potter or Batman."

Which is completely false, except for the tiniest subset of players.

The truth is, players want to be Harry Potter or Batman. or whatever. They don't want to be Toni Morrison.

[Settembrini]

The truth is, players want to be Harry Potter or Batman. or whatever. They don't want to be Toni Morrison.

I want to fly starships.

[David R]

Yeah the GM (in most trad type of games) should play at being JK Rowling, Bob Kane and Toni Morrison....although if you're playing at being Toni Morrison I'd like to think she would like a more collaborative style of play

Regards,
David R

[Vadrus]

The truth is, players want to be Harry Potter or Batman. or whatever. They don't want to be Toni Morrison.

I'd have to agree, most people I have ever GM'd for tend to turn up to the table with an 'entertain me' attitude, and as GM I love trying to live up to or exceed their expectations.

Similarly when I play I tend to think 'great, I can relax now and just play', I don't want to have the creative responsability all of the time.

Shared responsibility games can be great, but personally I find them too stressful on the group as a whole to try and maintain them for long.


Vadrus

[Abyssal Maw]

I'd have to agree, most people I have ever GM'd for tend to turn up to the table with an 'entertain me' attitude, and as GM I love trying to live up to or exceed their expectations.

Similarly when I play I tend to think 'great, I can relax now and just play', I don't want to have the creative responsability all of the time.

Shared responsibility games can be great, but personally I find them too stressful on the group as a whole to try and maintain them for long.


Vadrus

WRONG, they don't want to be "entertained". That's a complete mischaracterization. They want to be that character, and take part in creating their story in a natural way, rather than the artifical "story simulator" method advocated by the forgies.

ASK THEM.

[J Arcane]

I'd have to agree, most people I have ever GM'd for tend to turn up to the table with an 'entertain me' attitude, and as GM I love trying to live up to or exceed their expectations.

Similarly when I play I tend to think 'great, I can relax now and just play', I don't want to have the creative responsability all of the time.

Shared responsibility games can be great, but personally I find them too stressful on the group as a whole to try and maintain them for long.


Vadrus

Bingo.  Ultimately, the GM/PC divide works so well, because they're essentially two seperate sets of interests and aptitudes, as well as two sperate effort levels, that don't necessarily always cross.  The number of PC-type players outnumbers the number of GM-type players for a reason, because the effort level of the latter is not necessarily desired by the former.

[TonyLB]

WRONG, they don't want to be "entertained". That's a complete mischaracterization. They want to be that character, and take part in creating their story in a natural way, rather than the artifical "story simulator" method advocated by the forgies.

ASK THEM.

Well, I certainly know folks who fit your description of wanting to be their character.  I also know folks who fit Vadrus's description of wanting to be entertained.  There's no contradiction there.  In my experience, different people want different things.

I've had fun GMing for people who want to be entertained by virtuoso GMing.

I've had fun GMing for people who want to be their character.

I've had fun GMing for people who want to co-author the story from their position playing a character.

All of these occur with fair frequency in the gaming population.  Is that notion ... controversial? :confused:

[Vadrus]

WRONG, they don't want to be "entertained". That's a complete mischaracterization. They want to be that character, and take part in creating their story in a natural way, rather than the artifical "story simulator" method advocated by the forgies.

ASK THEM.

No, actually they do want to be entertained, two in my current group specifically refer to it as such, they are not deep into characterisation or indeed pretty much anything else, they turn up, watch everyone else and do very little even when prompted. We have frequently asked if they are OK or want us to change anything and they always say they enjoy themselves as is.

It just shows that gaming is made up of all sorts of different personalities.

For the rest of the group however I would agree, they are of the 'I want to play 'a' character in a fantasy world' type.


Vadrus

[Abyssal Maw]

I just find this idea that players want to be passively entertained to be used as an excuse to either promote or slander. In any case, I don't think it's an accurate description.

You can be passively entertained just by watching the game. If that's what they "really want", then why aren't they doing that?

[TonyLB]

AM:  I had one guy explain it thus:  Sitting there as a pure spectator is often awkward.  It can make people self-conscious.  Whereas being a player who just doesn't do very much is a perfectly acceptable social role, which lets you serve your interest in passive entertainment just as well, and doesn't make anyone uncomfortable.

[Spike]

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.

Twice in one day I get presented with a 'loaded question built using bad assumptions'.

Sure, RPG's ARE special.  That's why they are RPG's and not 'just another board game' or 'just another wargame'.  The dynamics are totally different.

Why not bring sports in? I know, you were already asked; Its not a useful thing to do to limit conversation in such a specific fashion.

Why?  Well, first of all a much better analogy is that RPG's are actually very much like sports. The Players are a team, first of all. I've seen games that actually use that very term rather than the more generic 'group'. Or perhaps alongside it.   The GM isn't the 'Other Team'. Not normally.  Why do you think most sports have leagues? Because its boring to play the same team over and over again.  I'll cop that Burning Empires puts the GM into the 'Other Team' catagory, but I think that it was a poor idea.

The GM is the Referee... somethign some games even call him. He's the league manager, he is even... when things go well, the Audience.  Sure, in his 'league manager' role  he makes the players go against the 'Other Teams' in the form of his NPC's. But he's not rooting for the NPC's.  Find me a GM who regularly roots for his NPC's to win and I'll show you a GM who has a hard time keeping players past the first session.





Personally, I wonder if you have already seen an analogy like this and realized it was hard to argue against or something, and thats why you said 'no sports'.

But back to RPG's being special:  Most games are played one on one or rarely one vs everyone else.  They are explicitely competetive.  RPG's are not.  They are not played one vs one. They are not played 'every man for himself'. One does not step away from a good night's gaming crowing victory over your friends and party members. You don't get up in the GM's face calling him a punk 'cause you totally DOMINATED him at the table.  Sure, that shit is sophomoric behavior, but you see it in competetive games sometimes.

The language of the game is different too. You may be, as a group (and recall, traditional RPG's have niches, no single player can 'go it alone' supposedly), talking about beating the GM's Dungeon, but its far less common to talk about beating the GM. Its a subtle thing, but meaningful nonetheless.

Now, you want to toss all that out the window? Challenge the 'basic assumptions of the game'?  That's your business.  I think its stupid, like baking a cake without flour. Sure, it can be done... but why? The end result isn't going to be very cakelike.  Why not make something that doesn't require flour in the first place?

Same thing: If the unique (and yes again, SPECIAL) dynamic of RPG's isn't too your taste... why try to make an RPG that plays more like a board game? Why not fucking make an actual board game instead? Or play an actual board game?  If they are to your taste, why try so damn hard to toss out the fundamentals?  Building a house without a foundation is just foolish, but you want to challenged the assumption that foundations are necessary to houses?

[Abyssal Maw]

AM:  I had one guy explain it thus:  Sitting there as a pure spectator is often awkward.  It can make people self-conscious.  Whereas being a player who just doesn't do very much is a perfectly acceptable social role, which lets you serve your interest in passive entertainment just as well, and doesn't make anyone uncomfortable.

I simply don't believe that the majority (and make no mistake, this is always characterized as the majority) of gamers would really rather watch then play, but "plays anyway just so nobody feels uncomfortable."

Nor do I believe that there is any kind of sizable population that really wants to play at "being an author".

Nor do I believe that these story-simulators actually work all that well.  For one thing, they are clearly simulations, and for one thing, by reducing player-to-character ownership responsibilities, you also reduce the personal stake everyone has in playing.

I do believe there is a sizable population of people that want to play at being a character. They specifically want to be their own character and be in their own little story, and have their own little Rashomon version of how it went.