I've meant to post this some time ago. Somewhere around mid 2009 the second Dungeon Master's Guide for 4th Edition was released, and someone on Amazon wrote a noteworthy review. The review is by a fan of the edition, as you can gather from his review track on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/ANI00381ZIMEW/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview) (from which also the text below is taken). I say this by way of preliminary since the review, especially posted on this site, would probably be considered straight flamebait if it didn't come from a fan who had written it in earnest. Anyway, enough of preliminary, enjoy the review. I'm sure Pundit is going to love it.
---------------
Dungeon Master's Guide 2, a review by Jacob G Corbin RSS Feed (Prairie Village, Kansas United States)
As anyone who plays RPGs knows at this late date, the fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (or D&D4E) has engendered a lot of controversy in the community by breaking dramatically with the game's past in several key areas, replacing decades-old systems like "Vancian" casting and skill checks with power lists and collaborative skill challenges. Where did these innovations come from? "4E rips off World of Warcraft," say people who in most cases know very little about either. The truth is that a lot of 4E's mechanics and underlying philosophy were heavily influenced by the burgeoning independent RPG movement of recent years, a collection of writers and designers that have worked to stretch the boundaries of what is possible in the world of roleplaying games. Games without dice or any random elements, games without referees or dungeon masters, games without rules...a whole new world of strange delights that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson could never have foreseen.
Influenced by these innovators, the people who made 4E went under the hood of Dungeons and Dragons and rebuilt it from the ground up. Nothing was sacred. We've seen the result of their efforts in the rules of the system to date, but now, with the release of Dungeon Master's Guide 2, we see the philosophy illustrated, not with rules, but with storytelling techniques that any DM, for *any* system, can profit from. Very little of the advice is specific to 4E, or even to Dungeons and Dragons. It shows you, with examples, how to harness the power of collaborative storytelling, how to enlist your players in worldbuilding and how to tell stories that engage everyone at the table.
Let me share my own story. The day after getting this I was due to begin a new game of Star Wars Saga Edition with a new group of people - some friends and some strangers - and I was stumped for what to do. I was having serious trouble coming up with characters and stories, and I dreaded showing up unprepared. But I took the advice from chapter 1 of this book and during character creation at the first session, I went around the table and had each of my players describe for me a positive relationship their character has with another PC, a negative relationship they have with another PC, and to name and describe an NPC that they have a relationship with. Here's the thing: that may sound basic, but often, many players have thoughts about their characters and the game as a whole that they never share with each other or with the group - but here, as we went around the table, the characters came to life, not only in their players' minds, but in each other's as well, and they began relating to each other with a level of excitement and drama that in the past took weeks or months of play to form. And meanwhile the players had, completely without knowing it, given me enough story fuel to last for months! The game has been a huge hit and the players love seeing the NPC and setting details they created reflected in the world around them. I've been DMing for two decades and that simple trick had never occurred to me, and now I'll never run another game without it.
The book is full of useful, practical advice like that. But there's a challenge inherent in much of the advice, and it involves being willing to let go a bit of the old ways of doing things. Many DMs are immensely possessive of "their" story and "their" world, and the suggestions in this book will sound like madness to them. They want to stick with what's worked for them. And I can't blame them for that, but what this book has shown me is that even in a field as well-trodden as Dungeon Mastering there are still new things to try. In a way, it's liberating, to realize that after all this time, I am still a learner.
As a follow up to the review I'm going to quote some salient bits of the book itself to show people what the author is on about. The chapter on "Collaborative World Building" introduces a technique it calls "Incidental Reference":
Quote from: 4E DMG, page 17Incidental Reference
This situation arises when a player makes an offhand remark, possibly as in-character dialogue, concerning a fact about the world. You [the DM] then treat it as true.
If you need to adjust the idea, do not interrupt an unfolding scene to footnote the setting detail. Wait until a suitable break in the action, and then go back and clarify.
A side bar then illustrates this concept (interestingly, the side-bar occurs before the definition above):
Quote from: 4E DMG, page 16DM's Workshop: Champions of Honor
In this example of an incidental reference, a player named Ed responds haughtily on behalf of his character, Erekam, when challenged by the sentinels at a city gate:
"I bang vigorously on my shield, showing them the emblem of my warrior order."
Ed has never before referenced and emblem on his shield, but since it's his character, he can introduce it without any adjustment by you [the DM].
"Do you recognize this symbol?" Ed exclaims, in his deep Erekam voice. "It identifies me as a member of the Champions of Honor!" Do you not know us?"
You [the DM] have never heard of the Champions of Honor. You reach for your notepad, ready to scrawl the necessary notation.
In character as the indiffierent guard, you scratch your head and say, "We don't receive visitors hereabouts, stranger."
"Why, for a hundred years the Champpions of Honor have protected the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!"
Through this exchange, Ed establishes that this organization exists as he has described and that Erekam belongs to it. After brainstorming for a moment, you prepare a bandit encounter - now someone can spot Erekam's shield, tell him about a brigand problem, and motivate the group's trip to the wilderness to engage them.
DMG 2 CONTENT UPDATEAnother aspect of collaborative storytelling the book introduces is this:
Quote from: DMG 2, page 17 Descriptive Control
When you grant partial descriptive control to your players, you allow them to specify what they see and hear in a scene.
A daring DM might let the PCs play in this sandbox if he or she feels confident enough to countermand advantages that players try to sneak into the situation.
The DM's Workshop sidebars "Tentacle Temple" and "Forks in the Road" provide examples of descriptive control.
Ok folks, now for the examples.
Quote from: DMG 2, page 18DM's Workshop: Tentacle Temple
In this example of a direct assertion, the party has entered a demon-occupied city.
"Do I see a watchtower?" Carlos asks you [the DM].
Before you can reply, Ben, feeling a creative surge, supplies an answer of his own: "Look! Over there! That horrible tower, rising from the central plateau! Oh, my goodness, its tiles writhe! And tentacles dangle from the spire!"
You might instinctively want to slap down this seizure of your narrative prerogative. Then you remember that you encouraged players to collaborate in building the world. You affirm Ben's idea by building on it.
"Yep, those tentacles, all right. A strange bird that looks like a black-feathered albatross circles slowly near the spire. Suddenly, a tentacle zaps out, like the tongue of a frog, and grabs the bird, pulling it into the tower. You hear a chewing noise."
"You mean the tower is alive?" Deena exclaims. She knows your DMing style indluces vivid details to encourage the PCs to move closer to explore. "Thanks a lot, Ben!" she jokes.
Quote from: DMG 2, page 17DM's Workshop: Forks in the Road
In this example of solicited input, the players are travelling along an ancient road through a dense forest.
[abbreviated. Players arrive at a fork in the road.]
This fork offers a decision point to the PCs, as wlel as a chance to tailor its branches to their interests. Ben and Deena dominated an earlier interaction scene, so you solicit input from Amy and Carlos.
"Amy, you've heard that something dangerous lies to the west. What is it?" [the DM asks]
Amy thinks for a moment. "Um, it's bird people. I hate bird people."
For a moment, you panic. You don't have stat blocks for any bird people. But you realize that [...you can winge it.] You affirm Amy's choice by adding a new detail.
"Oh yes," you reply. "They have a new leader, Radak, who has sworn vengeance on all mammals."
"No, you fucking twat. 'Mammals' is a fucking anachronism. I'll have none of that shit in MY game, DM," Amy replies. [Ok, I made that up. Rest of the sidebar compressed. The DM solicits the other player's input, Carlos', as to what lies east. After that's established...]
Now that the players have established their options, they debate the merits of the two choices: Do they head towards the hostile bird people, or do they explore the haunted pagoda?
I could go on, but you get the gist. I submit these passages to indicate where the review author is coming from.
Two words: Robin. Fucking. Laws.
Wouldn't know this book from the next, but I can see how a whole chapter of the RPG family would hate hate hate it.
DM: You are all at a tavern. Describe yourselves.
Player: I'm human and I have a mace and shield. You see an emblem on my shield that says "Swine did not freeking invent this."
Edit: You [the DM] have never heard of that order. You reach for your notepad, ready to scrawl the necessary notation.
If I heard a Player claim he was part of the "Champions of Honor", I'd have to stop laughing first before writing that down as a note.
First off, I'm just going to say what a lame "review" this guy had. If nothing else, it barely gave any idea of what to expect from the product and was basically just a soapbox for him to prattle on, even to the point of including a boring and barely relevant anecdote. How lame.
That said, I do think DMG 2 was a good book with a lot of good advice and is great for people who don't have decades of gaming experience and who have never heard of someone like Robin Laws (or even people who do, like myself, who have still never heard of RL other than from references I've seen the past few years here and at tbp).
Personally, I'm not big on the "Incidental Reference" section, though, and the example is terrible (and, as jeff mentions, quite laughable).
I have used a similar technique, but it usually takes the form of a player asking me if there is something their character needs (like a particular shop in town) or if there is a particular type of person the character knows (some kind of contact) and me telling them to decide on whether there is and what form it takes and then I help shape it into something appropriate for the campaign. I would never let a player introduce some cheesy "Champions of Honor" group out of thin air.
I let my kid do that.
I know better than to let the adults I game with do that.
My son has all kinds of undefined narrative control over the Star Wars game I run for him, but I do it subtly...although when he wanted to name an NPC Clone Trooper "Ben 10", we had negotiations that turned it into "Ben Wizard 101" before it finally settled on "Ben Wizard".
Quote from: jeff37923;360799If I heard a Player claim he was part of the "Champions of Honor", I'd have to stop laughing first before writing that down as a note.
Wouldn't you be tempted to subvert it? I mean make then a band of notorious drunks or a travelling theatrical group, or an all women hobbit wrestling team ?
I'd make "Champions of Honor," some sort of ultra-conservative, yet armed and dangerous, group of loonies who go around and fight for (meaning engaging in combat on someone's behalf) virgins.
Being angry, armed and virgins themselves they take their sexually-denied drive and channel it into bashing heads like the white knights they wish to be!
Lo, the shame when one of their members fails a "purity test."
Quote from: jibbajibba;360821Wouldn't you be tempted to subvert it? I mean make then a band of notorious drunks or a travelling theatrical group, or an all women hobbit wrestling team ?
I'd be tempted to subvert it, but the name just brings forth memories of every Lawful Stupid Paladin that I have ever had to suffer through in a game. That is subversion enough...
Quote from: jibbajibba;360821Wouldn't you be tempted to subvert it? I mean make then a band of notorious drunks or a travelling theatrical group, or an all women hobbit wrestling team ?
Quote from: Danger;360829I'd make "Champions of Honor," some sort of ultra-conservative, yet armed and dangerous, group of loonies who go around and fight for (meaning engaging in combat on someone's behalf) virgins.
Being angry, armed and virgins themselves they take their sexually-denied drive and channel it into bashing heads like the white knights they wish to be!
Lo, the shame when one of their members fails a "purity test."
Keep them coming.
This DM has certainly reached for his notepad, more than ready to scrawl the 'necessary notations'. :D
Quote from: jgants;360807First off, I'm just going to say what a lame "review" this guy had.
Ohhhh, come on. This alone:
QuoteInfluenced by these [indy] innovators, the people who made 4E went under the hood of Dungeons and Dragons and rebuilt it from the ground up. Nothing was sacred.
is worth the price of admission. Imagine here the voice used for block buster trailers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeC-lGnajT0#t=0m32s) WotC should have used it for their 4e promo trailer. Not that "ze game will remain ze zame" - not true,
wrong accent, and
quite lacking the punch of the above.
I'm with Malleus. Us old, cranky Immersive Role-players have been engaging character's imaginations and having them come up with their own motivations and creating their own storylines cohesive with the shared setting for decades now.
You don't need to share narrative control about the setting, so that a player can, at the drop of a hat, write himself in as a member of a centuries-old lawkeeping organization that didn't exist 1 minute ago.
You don't need to have every player write down a 25-page backstory, most of which is just pulled out of their ass and isn't related to your campaign world because it's the same 25-page background they've used in 10 people's other groups.
What you need is a good GM.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, most of this new school RPG design philosophy is trying to code into mechanics a crutch for poor GMs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;360938You don't need to share narrative control about the setting, so that a player can, at the drop of a hat, write himself in as a member of a centuries-old lawkeeping organization that didn't exist 1 minute ago.
You don't need to have every player write down a 25-page backstory, most of which is just pulled out of their ass and isn't related to your campaign world because it's the same 25-page background they've used in 10 people's other groups.
Non-old, cranky Immersive Role-players don't
need those things either.
Seanchai
QuoteGames without dice or any random elements, games without referees or dungeon masters, games without rules...a whole new world of strange delights that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson could never have foreseen.
Oh yeah. When I want rules-lite, borderline-freeform RP, I definitely think of the indie movement...:rolleyes:
Quote from: Peregrin;360990Oh yeah. When I want rules-lite, borderline-freeform RP, I definitely think of the indie movement...:rolleyes:
:rotfl:
When I read the bit about the fighter banging his shield and proclaiming himself part of some Order that I (the hypothetical DM) had never heard of my first thought was that he was blowing smoke up their ass and thought about whether I would have the guard fall for the bluff. I really might too if the player played it up enough... then maybe later (like next year when the PCs return to the town) have the guard act all cranky because he had learned the symbol was actually just the "signature" of the guy who made the shield. I suppose one could actually make the "Champions of Honor" a real group though.... that could work too I guess.
Quote from: Sigmund;361188When I read the bit about the fighter banging his shield and proclaiming himself part of some Order that I (the hypothetical DM) had never heard of my first thought was that he was blowing smoke up their ass and thought about whether I would have the guard fall for the bluff. I really might too if the player played it up enough... then maybe later (like next year when the PCs return to the town) have the guard act all cranky because he had learned the symbol was actually just the "signature" of the guy who made the shield. I suppose one could actually make the "Champions of Honor" a real group though.... that could work too I guess.
As a DM, I might add the Champions of Honor to my campaign, and then make sure they heard about the PC lying about being a member, and have the Champions of Honor send hit-men after him as righteous justice for defaming their name by falsely claiming membership.
Quote from: Mistwell;361192As a DM, I might add the Champions of Honor to my campaign, and then make sure they heard about the PC lying about being a member, and have the Champions of Honor send hit-men after him as righteous justice for defaming their name by falsely claiming membership.
That would be fun too.
Quote from: Sigmund;361188When I read the bit about the fighter banging his shield and proclaiming himself part of some Order that I (the hypothetical DM) had never heard of my first thought was that he was blowing smoke up their ass and thought about whether I would have the guard fall for the bluff. I really might too if the player played it up enough... then maybe later (like next year when the PCs return to the town) have the guard act all cranky because he had learned the symbol was actually just the "signature" of the guy who made the shield. I suppose one could actually make the "Champions of Honor" a real group though.... that could work too I guess.
Quote from: Mistwell;361192As a DM, I might add the Champions of Honor to my campaign, and then make sure they heard about the PC lying about being a member, and have the Champions of Honor send hit-men after him as righteous justice for defaming their name by falsely claiming membership.
Why? I mean, I know the example is laughably lame, but do these responses indicate a problem with the principle behind the example? Set this example aside. If a player were to invent some world detail in play that was actually pretty cool, or at least acceptably cool, in a similar on-the-spot manner , would you still have a desire to pervert it or undermine it like that? If so, then why?
"Do you recognize this symbol?" Ed exclaims, in his deep Erekam voice. "It identifies me as a member of the Mathematicians of Honor!" Do you not know us?"
You [the DM] have never heard of the Mathematicians of Honor. You reach for your notepad, ready to scrawl the necessary scientific notation.
Quote from: two_fishes;361246Why? I mean, I know the example is laughably lame, but do these responses indicate a problem with the principle behind the example? Set this example aside. If a player were to invent some world detail in play that was actually pretty cool, or at least acceptably cool, in a similar on-the-spot manner , would you still have a desire to pervert it or undermine it like that? If so, then why?
You are one uptight little penis dude. I never said I was or would pervert anything, I said based on past experience with my fellow players, that is the first thing that would come to my mind. Why do you feel the need to grant players narrative control? Why does the lack of such control, or apparently even the expectation or recognition of such an attempt at narrative control induce such an adversarial reaction from you? To answer your question, if a player were to earnestly put forth an idea for some sort of detail similar to the example that didn't interfere with anything already in place in the campaign I can't foresee having any objection to it at all. In fact, I myself added such a detail to a 3.x campaign I was a player in a campaign and created a group called "Dwarven Bouncers". I included a history and guidelines for an order of dwarven monks that were dedicated to keeping their fellow dwarves safe from their own tempers while engaging in heavy drinking. None of this precludes making an assumption about the provided example, humorous or otherwise.
Quote from: Sigmund;361249You are one uptight little penis dude. I never said I was or would pervert anything, I said based on past experience with my fellow players, that is the first thing that would come to my mind.
I'm honestly not trying to be adversarial. I don't know your past experience with your players, and to be fair you didn't mention it--you simply said, "My first thought..." without any reference to the hypothetical player's intent. Your response did seem to be interpreting the example speech in a way that was contrary to the hypothetical player's intent.
QuoteWhy do you feel the need to grant players narrative control? Why does the lack of such control, or apparently even the expectation or recognition of such an attempt at narrative control induce such an adversarial reaction from you?
I'm primarily a player. I GM occasionally, but mostly play. The most intensely enjoyable play I've had were sessions where there was a great deal of collaboration and players were encouraged to invent setting details if they were so inspired and riff off of each others' additions. So that's part of it.
The other part of it is that I often see a very patronizing attitude toward players in gaming culture. It's frequently found in gaming texts, and I often see it when talking to other gamers, especially more traditional GMs. It bothers me whenever I see it. An adversarial spirit of undermining player input in subtle and not-so-subtle ways is a part of that and something I've seen in play.
Quote from: two_fishes;361251I'm honestly not trying to be adversarial. I don't know your past experience with your players, and to be fair you didn't mention it--you simply said, "My first thought..." without any reference to the hypothetical player's intent. Your response did seem to be interpreting the example speech in a way that was contrary to the hypothetical player's intent.
It might have been contrary to the hypothetical player's intent, but the damn player is hypothetical, so who fuckin cares?
QuoteI'm primarily a player. I GM occasionally, but mostly play. The most intensely enjoyable play I've had were sessions where there was a great deal of collaboration and players were encouraged to invent setting details if they were so inspired and riff off of each others' additions. So that's part of it.
The other part of it is that I often see a very patronizing attitude toward players in gaming culture. It's frequently found in gaming texts, and I often see it when talking to other gamers, especially more traditional GMs. It bothers me whenever I see it. An adversarial spirit of undermining player input in subtle and not-so-subtle ways is a part of that and something I've seen in play.
I, also, am primarily a player. I have GMed in the past, and intend to do so, perhaps more than before even, in the future. In the past though I have played in a great many more games than I've GMed. Oddly enough, once again, my experience has been different in that I have seen almost no patronizing attitudes towards players anywhere. I have a very low tolerance for that kind of attitude, so I think I'd pick up on it right away. I hate to say it but I had been subjected to some of the attitudes and behaviors that ya'all have described, I'd most likely have quit RPGing completely. My other geeky hobbies of computers, photography, and bicycling are more than enough to keep me busy and happy, not to mention my girlfriend, her kids, my kid, and possible college in my near future. I would survive without it. That I have gamed with great people who are fun to hang out with and get to know is what keeps me coming back to the hobby. My GMs are people I like and trust to handle the game in a way that is fair and enjoyable for all, or I don't game with them.... simple as that. My advice to ya'all would be to find people to game with that are nice and decent people.
Quote from: Sigmund;361249... I was a player in a campaign and created a group called "Dwarven Bouncers".
So Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361346So Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?
Seanchai
People do this all the time- they come up with little details about their pre-campaign character's life- ("my character used to be a part of a mercenary company" or "back when my character was still learning magic..") in every single campaign of every edition I've ever played. So I guess the offensive part is supposed to be the suggestion that the DM is encouraged to incorporate those details whenever possible. In Basic, AD&D, and 3rd Edition I routinely allowed the PCs to create their own home countries for the campaign, and add as much (or as little) detail as they liked in the process of filling out the map. It's a great way to get creative player buy-in to the campaign.
I've only ever seen it treated so vehemently in cases where it's an attempt to justify a lot of fake outrage against the edition itself.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361362People do this all the time- they come up with little details about their pre-campaign character's life- ("my character used to be a part of a mercenary company" or "back when my character was still learning magic..") in every single campaign of every edition I've ever played.
Yeah. I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361371Yeah. I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better.
Seanchai
I agree here. I think that people are more up in arms with the way it's brought up in game to try to garner some kind of immediate benefit when there was no prior knowledge of it. If the player had created the Champions of Honor organization during character creation and let the GM know about it, then I think that most GMs would be fine with it and actually incorporate into their games. In the latter case, I think that a GM would be more willing to give the player some kind of in game benefit on the fly since he's already familiar with the concept of this organization.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361362I've only ever seen it treated so vehemently in cases where it's an attempt to justify a lot of fake outrage against the edition itself.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't mean this as a rhetorical gesture), but this is the first time that what's here called "Incidental Reference" is brought to a
core rulebook in D&D. Point the first. Point the second: I'm not sure I've ever seen that technique in any D&D gaming group I've frequented, ever. I surely lack the many years that others have on this site playing D&D, but playing D&D and incidental reference are antithetical to me, and that's even before I try to rationalize it.
Not that I can't. So here goes. I'm currently regularly playing D&D (4E and 3.5) as well as Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, a lot of the mechanics focus on the player bargaining with the GM over the hypothetical result of what happens when the PC fails a skill test. The sort of things that get suggested by both sides are things that make sense from a 3rd personal POV; ideally (from the designers' POV) players think about the narrative progression as much as the GM.
And that's the thing I dislike most about Burning Wheel. I'm asked by the game to switch from first personal mode where I react to in-game situations from my character's POV (and character knowledge etc. - the whole shebang) to this distanced third personal perspective, the grand narrator. I don't like these shifts. They don't make me uncomfortable, or strike me as artsy-fartsy - it's just that I don't like the ensuing game experience of being pulled out of roleplaying my character.
So when things like these get introduced to another game where I'm comfortable with, and enjoy, playing my character
ever only from the 1st personal POV I react negatively. If I'm the player who brings up the "Champions of Honor" at the brink of the moment, I'm throwing a suggestion into the game which basically requires me to look at the game from this outside perspective. I'd even go so far that, as a player, I'd not idly voice a suggestion but even, with only a couple of seconds to think this over, to quickly calculate what my gains and penalties are for introducing this or taht into the game. In short, I'm playing another game alongside playing my character.
And frankly, it's not about drawing up part of the campaign map
before the campaign kicks off (to use your own example) - it's about me as a player scripting setting details right
in the middle of the 9th or 10th session
into the campaign
as a reaction to situations my character faces. At this point, the difference between the "Champions of Honors" example in DMG 2 and that
of a player who averts the dangers in a dungeon by scripting an escape route for his character mid-play is no longer a difference in kind but in degree. Speaking of which, one source I didn't reference in my second post above is that the 4E DMG 2, while advising DMs to be
careful to let player script details about combat terrain, includes an actual example of that in a side bar to illustrate that technique too. So we
are talking about players rescripting the combats at this point.
And you know, this sort of thing raised the ire on this site aeons before 4E was even on the horizon. To quote a particularly salient response in a discussion I've bookmarked on my computer years ago, here's a great post from clash (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=31366&postcount=30), saying once and for all what rubs some people wrong about narrative control. It's basically the same point I make above, except with less rambling and greater punch:
Quote from: flyingmiceI consider play and story to be two separate things. Play is the immediate happenings - what is going on, who is doing what. Story is the recounting of play as a linked series of events. All play creates story - "Queen's knight takes king's bishop, king's rook takes king's bishop, checkmate" is a story where the characters are White and Black. It may be a a boring, abstract story, but it's a story nonetheless. The purpose of any game is the play, not the story that play creates. No one would argue that the purpose of playing chess is to produce that god-awful story.
Since RPGs have much more vivid characters than White and Black, the stories created from RPG play take on far more emotive power and resonance than other games, particularly with a group who enjoy the character aspect of play. Because of this, people tend to fall into the trap of thinking it's the story that's the desired end product when, like any game, it's the actuality of doing now that's vital. Aiming for story rather than play, IMO, produces better structured but not necessarily more powerful story, and interferes with some people's - I certainly know iinterferes with my - play by littering it with artificialities. You lose the sense that this is a life being lived, and replace it with the sense that this is a character being scripted, even though the scripter is yourself.
-clash
Quote from: Windjammer;361408It's basically the same point I make above, except with less rambling and greater punch:
Oh I can see that not everyone will be ok with that, but then.. so what?
My point is: we're not even actually talking about any rule in 4E-- we're just talking about a DMing technique. A matter of style. And these techniques have appeared before- you can find something similar being suggested in the Complete Book of Villians for AD&D2e. It isn't about breaking character in order to hammer out what the mechanical benefits of something, it's just a casual technique to increase participationism and detail in the campaign. So you give the guy a +2 or something on a diplomacy check. Maybe. Or you don't. Or maybe you note "hey we should totally make up that mercenary organization your character mentioned, that was pretty cool.." ...or maybe you don't.
This is not rules, but rather style.
You could use this in any RPG. It only seems to become controversial when you mention the number "4" and the letter "e" in the same paragraph.
First off, there is nothing wrong with saying "No" to your Players if you are GM.
I don't mind Player input for a campaign as long as it is A) Not an attempt to gain a special advantage over other Players, B) Not an attempt to game the system, C) Run by me as GM for my approval, and D) The input fits in with the campaign setting genre and base idea. It also helps to talk to the GM about these additions before the game starts and not just drop them into the middle of the game while in session.
The reason for A) and B) is because there are Munchkins and Twinks out there that will show up in your game and try to dominate the group, which tends to drive other Players away from the group.
The reason for C) and D) is because as GM running a game in a setting that is your own since you are running it means that you have ownership over that setting during that campaign. Too many cooks spoil the soup and having non-genre conventions show up mid-campaign (like magic in a Traveller game) or powerful associations not accounted for (like a Player proclaiming that his character in a group of ragamuffins is actually the God-King) can really fuck up whatever the GM has had planned or was running for the campaign. The Players do not know what the GM has planned, and shouldn't if they want to fully enjoy the campaign, thus they do not know how the added material will affect the campaign.
And now, another tale from the same FLGS d20 Star Wars group which had a PC smother a grenade. This is an example of Player ideas that just don't fit in with the group. Although, this one was self-correcting.
Different Player than the grenade smotherer. We had chatted during character creation and the Players wanted to play Rebels during the Rebellion Era, so we all started rolling up some Rebels. One Player tells me that his character was a former TIE Fighter ace pilot who used to fly with Soontir Fel's 181st TIE Fighter Squadron and was a staunch Imperial loyalist. I asked him then why he was joining a group of Rebels who hated the Empire?
In a loud voice the Player answered that, "He wanted to join the Rebels so that he could capture all of them and turn them into the Empire for the reward." He said this so loud that the rest of the Players in the FLGS heard him and took his statement at face value.
Within ten minutes of actual play beginning, the PC who intended to betray the Rebels was reduced to a smouldering skeleton like Uncle Owen or Aunt Beru from the original Star Wars. The rest of the party decided to be proactive and blasted the douchebag before he could cause any problems in game.
Yes, it was metagaming by everyone. I found no problem with that since it kept a Twink douchebag from shitting all over everyone else's fun.
Quote from: jeff37923;361441One Player tells me that his character was a former TIE Fighter ace pilot who used to fly with Soontir Fel's 181st TIE Fighter Squadron and was a staunch Imperial loyalist. I asked him then why he was joining a group of Rebels who hated the Empire?
In a loud voice the Player answered that, "He wanted to join the Rebels so that he could capture all of them and turn them into the Empire for the reward." He said this so loud that the rest of the Players in the FLGS heard him and took his statement at face value.
Within ten minutes of actual play beginning, the PC who intended to betray the Rebels was reduced to a smouldering skeleton like Uncle Owen or Aunt Beru from the original Star Wars. The rest of the party decided to be proactive and blasted the douchebag before he could cause any problems in game.
I don't know the players in question, obviously, and maybe he really was a twink douchebag, I don't know. I'm willing to take your word for it. But with the games and people I've been playing with the past few years, this would be an awesome player motivation. We would
want it to be player knowledge so that we could all set up our characters to play off it in fun and dramatic ways. It could be fuel for amazing games. The players who insisted on immediately turning around and killing the treacherous character would be the ones shitting on everyone's fun.
Quote from: jeff37923;361441It also helps to talk to the GM about these additions before the game starts and not just drop them into the middle of the game while in session.
That's exactly what I was talking about. So, one year into our current 3.5 campaign, the monk player and I realize that it would really help better assess what his character code requires of him
if we actually wrote it down. ( You know, actually nail down fully spelled out thoughts as opposed to groping a bit here and there.) But I'm fine for him
to write that down. What I wouldn't be fine with is for him to make it up mid-way through the session as a convenient response to an in-game situation.
I mention that because him and I wanting to have a codex for his monk came up when the party looted a long dead corpse. He wasn't sure this is fine for his monk. Could we have made up a ruling there and then? Sure. But it's more coherently thought through pre- or post-session. Also, more cooperation between the player and the GM.
In direct response to Windjammer's post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=361408&postcount=29)
One man's meat... because for me, that sense of watching a story come together in play is the most thrilling part playing an rpg. The actual story that comes out of play is disposable. The experience of making it is awesome. Finding the connections & conflicts between characters, building toward dramatic moments, watching a sketch of a character fill in by means of difficult decisions and on-the-spot creations--it's great. Doing that collaboratively with a group of players who are each doing the same thing? Awesome. Add dice into the mix? It's on fire! I love Burning Wheel precisely for this reason, and don't find moving in and out of perspectives at all jarring.
Quote from: two_fishes;361444I don't know the players in question, obviously, and maybe he really was a twink douchebag, I don't know. I'm willing to take your word for it. But with the games and people I've been playing with the past few years, this would be an awesome player motivation. We would want it to be player knowledge so that we could all set up our characters to play off it in fun and dramatic ways. It could be fuel for amazing games.
In 28 years of gaming I have never encountered a group that would have had a positive reaction to the antagonistic purpose and intention of a Player and his PC towards their own party, except on the Internet.
Quote from: two_fishes;361444The players who insisted on immediately turning around and killing the treacherous character would be the ones shitting on everyone's fun.
Considering that the Players involved consisted of everyone else in the group with the exception of the treacherous character, I wouldn't call it shitting on everyone's fun. :D
Quote from: jeff37923;361457In 28 years of gaming I have never encountered a group that would have had a positive reaction to the antagonistic purpose and intention of a Player and his PC towards their own party, except on the Internet.
:idunno:You choose who you play with and what kinds of games you play, I guess. The example you gave was extreme, but player characters whose beliefs and goals cause conflict with other player characters is a great source of drama. So long as you're with other players who also enjoy that and know that character conflict doesn't extend into player conflict, it's a huge amount of fun.
Quote from: two_fishes;361458The example you gave was extreme, but player characters whose beliefs and goals cause conflict with other player characters is a great source of drama. So long as you're with other players who also enjoy that and know that character conflict doesn't extend into player conflict, it's a huge amount of fun.
Which, clearly, was not the case in his example. If everyone is up front and on board with it, then it's fine. When one person makes this decision for the whole group, then it's not fine.
It's incredibly important to remember that for every player who might think PCvPC conflict is interesting and dramatic, there may be a player who absolutely hate that in their games. Some players can't even stand in-game arguments, much less anything worse.
Me, I think it can be good when done right. My Rifts campaign had a PC knowingly sell his soul to a demon in exchange for not dying and slowly became more and more evil as a result while the rest of the PCs kept ignoring the warning signs. Ultimately, he became a NPC villain that they killed. Some of us saw this as a crowning moment of awesome in the game. A couple of players really hated it and thought it violated an implicit social contract.
Who was right? We all were. It never occurred to either side that the other side would be surprised by their reactions.
So, from now on, the social contract of PC behavior towards PC behavior is explicitly set before the campaign begins and before character creation. For example, in my current D&D game, I explicitly defined the parameters of the game that the PCs must like and trust each other and are forbidden from acting against each other, because I'm going for more of a black and white fantasy feel. However, if I ever did, say, a Dark Heresy campaign, that would have a very different explicit social contract.
I guess my point is that "don't make ninjas for this wild west campaign" isn't the only sort of PC restrictions GMs should think about when planning a game. It may be wise to explicitly work out how the PC act towards each other as well.
Quote from: two_fishes;361458... but player characters whose beliefs and goals cause conflict with other player characters is a great source of drama. So long as you're with other players who also enjoy that and know that character conflict doesn't extend into player conflict, it's a huge amount of fun.
Very true but it also presents a problem to the GM who sometimes has to mediate between these characters in game. I've run many player conflict games and the one thing I've noticed is, that is does make the role of the GM harder. Most often there's an escalation of conflict(s) and you (as the GM) have to decide if such conflicts become the focus of the campaign or talk to players and see if they want to follow whatever you have got planned.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Windjammer;361408Correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't mean this as a rhetorical gesture), but this is the first time that what's here called "Incidental Reference" is brought to a core rulebook in D&D. Point the first. Point the second: I'm not sure I've ever seen that technique in any D&D gaming group I've frequented, ever. I surely lack the many years that others have on this site playing D&D, but playing D&D and incidental reference are antithetical to me, and that's even before I try to rationalize it.
I find miniatures to be a holdover from wargaming days (some D&Ders stopped using them altogether when they abandoned the Chainmail rules in favor of the optional D&D combat matrices we (well most) all know and love, including Gygax), and I know for a fact that they pull me out of FPP and throw me into TPP, but it doesn't bother me that the
suggestion to use them is there in many RPG corebooks, including ones that don't explicitly require the use of minis.
There are a lot of meta-"tools" people use to enhance their game, and some work better for others. I think shared narrative control can be a useful tool for some groups, but obviously just like I have a very strong dislike for miniatures, a lot of people have a strong dislike for passing the narrative torch from the GM to a player. It's a different way to do things that definitely won't work for everyone, but I don't think suggesting it is going to turn D&D into a "Forgie" game or anything, no more than 4e's requirement of minis has turned it into a "boardgame."
Hey, at least it's an optional suggestion that won't really affect your group's playstyle if you don't want it to. I didn't get so lucky when they decided to require the use of a battle-grid -- my playstyle got chucked out the window.
Quote from: David R;361482I've run many player conflict games and the one thing I've noticed is, that is does make the role of the GM harder. Most often there's an escalation of conflict(s) and you (as the GM) have to decide if such conflicts become the focus of the campaign or talk to players and see if they want to follow whatever you have got planned.
Also, you suddenly have to adjudicate player on player action. Personally, I don't give a whit about monsters or NPCs - they exist to be dealt with, become pawns, et al.. And so if something comes up that needs adjudicating, I have no problem erring on the side of the players, if it comes down to that. With PvP action, that's impossible.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361346So Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?
Seanchai
Yes? No? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Did I say Champions of Honor was silly? Did I say "Dwarven Bouncers" wasn't? Shut up.
Quote from: Seanchai;361371Yeah. I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better.
Seanchai
You really are a miserable prick. Not just a miserable prick, a miserable prick who either can't read or is too stupid to read before flying off at the typing fingers about shit that exists only in your undeservedly self-righteous head. Plus, you don't even posses the ability to make your irrelevant regurgitations entertaining.
Quote from: Peregrin;361489I find miniatures to be a holdover from wargaming days (some D&Ders stopped using them altogether when they abandoned the Chainmail rules in favor of the optional D&D combat matrices we (well most) all know and love, including Gygax), and I know for a fact that they pull me out of FPP and throw me into TPP
I anticipated this point and didn't want to work it in the post you're commenting on. For the record, I totally agree with your assessment (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=295906&postcount=38), and, if anything, would like to add that I think it pertains to DMing as much. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=332747&postcount=50)
And not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a difference between assuming the third person's point of view when that third person is the grand narrator, and assuming that POV when the third person in question is the grand tactician. They are akin, but you engage in different thought processes.
You
are obviously right though, that at a basic level both pull you out of playing your character (or the monsters) from their first personal point of view.
Quote from: two_fishes;361448In direct response to Windjammer's post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=361408&postcount=29)
One man's meat... because for me, that sense of watching a story come together in play is the most thrilling part playing an rpg. The actual story that comes out of play is disposable. The experience of making it is awesome. Finding the connections & conflicts between characters, building toward dramatic moments, watching a sketch of a character fill in by means of difficult decisions and on-the-spot creations--it's great. Doing that collaboratively with a group of players who are each doing the same thing? Awesome. Add dice into the mix? It's on fire! I love Burning Wheel precisely for this reason, and don't find moving in and out of perspectives at all jarring.
Forget to say so straight away... but thanks for that post! Very concise and well written summary of what you find enjoyable about this play style. It's not for everyone but I'm not denying that some people are all in for that.
Great post, thanks.
Quote from: Sigmund;361506You really are a miserable prick. Not just a miserable prick, a miserable prick who either can't read or is too stupid to read before flying off at the typing fingers about shit that exists only in your undeservedly self-righteous head. Plus, you don't even posses the ability to make your irrelevant regurgitations entertaining.
As we can see, making fun of people's contributions is not the way to a happy group or happy players. People can have wildly disproportionate responses to the word "silly" when they feel vulnerable.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361592As we can see, making fun of people's contributions is not the way to a happy group or happy players. People can have wildly disproportionate responses to the word "silly" when they feel vulnerable.
Seanchai
Yes. Your point? Where do you imagine I made fun of anyone's contributions? Where, in this thread, have I used the word "silly"? On top of that, how much of a hypocrite do you have to be to then turn right around and do exactly what you are inaccurately singling me out for doing? You come across as a troll at the best of times, but here you're being a real cock, so fuck off.
Quote from: Sigmund;361660Your point?
"I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better."
"As we can see, making fun of people's contributions is not the way to a happy group or happy players. People can have wildly disproportionate responses to the word "silly" when they feel vulnerable."
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361686"I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better."
"As we can see, making fun of people's contributions is not the way to a happy group or happy players. People can have wildly disproportionate responses to the word "silly" when they feel vulnerable."
Seanchai
Do you have a point other than behaving like a flaming asshole that relates to anything I actually said, or are you replying to some sort of conversation that exists only in your imagination? I ask because I'm still failing to see why you are addressing me with this shit. I challenge you to point out where I made fun of, or "snickered at" anyone's contributions. Oh yeah, you can't, yet you are also incapable of admitting that you fucked up, so you fall back on repeating yourself and posting shit that makes no sense most likely hoping that we'll all get bored and move on so you can pretend you didn't let your buffalo mouth (so to speak) overload your hummingbird ass. I would advise putting some actual thought into what you are typing, maybe even rereading it before clicking the submit button.
Quote from: two_fishes;361444I don't know the players in question, obviously, and maybe he really was a twink douchebag, I don't know. I'm willing to take your word for it. But with the games and people I've been playing with the past few years, this would be an awesome player motivation. We would want it to be player knowledge so that we could all set up our characters to play off it in fun and dramatic ways. It could be fuel for amazing games. The players who insisted on immediately turning around and killing the treacherous character would be the ones shitting on everyone's fun.
No offense, but didn't we all determine a few months ago that you were what Pundit would consider a "Swine", just here to convert people over to the cult of story games and The Ron Edwards Way Of Gaming?
Quote from: Joethelawyer;361725No offense, but didn't we all determine a few months ago that you were what
Pundit would consider a "Swine" just here to convert people over to the cult of story games and Ron Edwards Way?
No "we" didn't. But if you want to call him Swine, go ahead.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Joethelawyer;361725No offense, but didn't we all determine a few months ago that you were what Pundit would consider a "Swine", just here to convert people over to the cult of story games and The Ron Edwards Way Of Gaming?
:rolleyes: and people tell me there are no free-roaming pundit flunkies left on this site. wasn't that the same thread where pundit's delusional paranoia flared up and he banned me for being a sock puppet? do you always believe everything you're told?
Quote from: two_fishes;361730:rolleyes: and people tell me there are no free-roaming pundit flunkies left on this site. wasn't that the same thread where pundit's delusional paranoia flared up and he banned me for being a sock puppet? do you always believe everything you're told?
I believe that was the thread, yes. He banned you, huh? :)
Like I said, no offense intended in my offensive comments. So you're not actually here just to push the story games POV?
You know what's scary is how often I find myself in agreement with Pundit on various topics here. I don't want to look too much deeper into it though...
(*scary places*)
Quote from: Joethelawyer;361731Like I said, no offense intended in my offensive comments. So you're not actually here just to push the story games POV?
I don't care one little bit whether or not I actually convince anyone. I participate in thread as much to whittle out precisely what my own thoughts are as to understand what anybody else really thinks. I just enjoy discussion. That's it.
Quote from: Joethelawyer;361731You know what's scary is how often I find myself in agreement with Pundit on various topics here. I don't want to look too much deeper into it though...
(*scary places*)
Well, personally, I agree with him on many things. Not all the time, but often.
The Pundit's a good guy when out of his intratubes persona.
Quote from: two_fishes;361730:rolleyes: and people tell me there are no free-roaming pundit flunkies left on this site. QUOTE]
Where else would Pundit flunkies hang out?
Quote from: Sigmund;361720Do you have a point other than behaving like a flaming asshole that relates to anything I actually said, or are you replying to some sort of conversation that exists only in your imagination?
Yeah. I've said it twice. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.
Seanchai
Quote from: two_fishes;361730:rolleyes: and people tell me there are no free-roaming pundit flunkies left on this site. wasn't that the same thread where pundit's delusional paranoia flared up and he banned me for being a sock puppet? do you always believe everything you're told?
So, when someone agrees with the Pundit, that makes them a flunky. when someone agrees with Edwards and shills his crap ideology on a totally different board, it's just an intellectual exercise?
Just want to see if I'm reading the exact hypocrisy right. I like to be specific.
Quote from: Shazbot79;361759Where else would Pundit flunkies hang out?
The pipe shop in the mall.
Seanchai
Oh you with your ideology this and your hypocrisy that. It's all so serious for you, isn't it? It's kind of cute, in a way, like watching a little dog bark. You have strong opinions about whether or not Han Solo shot first, don't you? It's a real important issue for you, isn't it? Tell me, this world you live in, where everything is an important ideological battle, and a little bit of playful hyperbole can't stand without being "called out", is it any fun? Because it seems to me like a lot of work.
2/10
Quote from: two_fishes;361246Why? I mean, I know the example is laughably lame, but do these responses indicate a problem with the principle behind the example? Set this example aside. If a player were to invent some world detail in play that was actually pretty cool, or at least acceptably cool, in a similar on-the-spot manner , would you still have a desire to pervert it or undermine it like that? If so, then why?
That's just not the kind of game my players and I enjoy. I don't mind playing a game like Burning Wheel, where contacts and resources are abstracted and can be used on the fly to apply to current situations, that's kind of cool, IMO, although it doesn't work for everybody, not even every group I game with.
The idea that you can create out of whole cloth a new and important element of the setting just completely suspends disbelief if one of your primary role-playing goals is Immersion. The metagame of the player's shared narration, turns the game from the character's viewpoint into a session of Mage the Ascension, where reality can be re-woven as need be. Such an action is basically a retcon from an immersive point of view.
Now if the character had done something less-blatant, less retconning, and was actually valid within the setting (for example based on his character's background) then I have no problem with allowing some cool creativity to "fill-in".
The ham-fisted nature of the example in an official 4e product is troubling. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that producers or games like 4e and WFRP3 are trying to "cash-in" on the indie/narrative movement, but don't have much expertise with the games that inspired it.
Quote from: two_fishes;361807Oh you with your ideology this and your hypocrisy that. It's all so serious for you, isn't it? It's kind of cute, in a way, like watching a little dog bark. You have strong opinions about whether or not Han Solo shot first, don't you? It's a real important issue for you, isn't it? Tell me, this world you live in, where everything is an important ideological battle, and a little bit of playful hyperbole can't stand without being "called out", is it any fun? Because it seems to me like a lot of work.
Yawn. Armchair psychoanalysis is soooo last year.
Troll harder next time.
Quote from: CRKrueger;361812The idea that you can create out of whole cloth a new and important element of the setting just completely suspends disbelief if one of your primary role-playing goals is Immersion. The metagame of the player's shared narration, turns the game from the character's viewpoint into a session of Mage the Ascension, where reality can be re-woven as need be. Such an action is basically a retcon from an immersive point of view.
I understand what you're saying but I would feel a little constrained playing that way. It's almost like I have to come to table knowing everything there is to know about my PC and must play him within that knowledge. On the other hand, if I have a flash of inspiration about my character during play, and I'm able to bring that into the fiction, it's like I've just discovered something new and interesting about that character. I really enjoy bringing a PC to the table with just scraps on information about who he is and where he's from, and a lot of unanswered questions to be filled in later.
Quote from: Seanchai;361793Yeah. I've said it twice. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.
Seanchai
Not that Sigmund needs or wants my help, but he didn't make any negative judgment on the Champions of Honour, I did. Well, me and a couple of others, but not him. So you really are being a twit. And for the record, I think the Dwarven Bouncers is kind of awesome. Think of the implication: dwarven drinking culture is both so sophisticated
and so raucous, that they've developed a whole monastic order devoted solely to keeping things in line.
Quote from: Seanchai;361793Yeah. I've said it twice. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.
Seanchai
You couldn't help me anyway, I don't need your fucking help idiot. You've said nothing that has anything to do with me. Once again, being pointed out to be a troll and in the wrong, you turn to repetition rather than just admit you fucked up. I'm sure you'll now try to show how you're still superior to everyone despite being an abrasive prick who is so quick to insult you can't even get your facts straight. You go on about how you call people on their shit, but when you get called on yours you puff up and try to bluster your way through instead of just manning up and admitting you are wrong. Way to be a cowardly penis. At least you're good at something huh?
Quote from: two_fishes;361828So you really are being a twit.
What kind of response do you think someone who launches into obscenities and attacks such as, "You really are a miserable prick," when a mistake has been made deserves? Attention? A retraction? An apology? Some kind of reward for being an infantile asshat?
If you bumped into someone on the sidewalk and they turned and said, "You miserable prick! You cock! You flaming asshole!" just how quickly and profusely would you apologize?
I learned something about this place: It's at its best when you learn how to ignore folks or, at the very least, skim their posts. The type of person I generally ignore is one who is rabid. That can mean unreasoning, such as some of the extreme 4e haters, or just so full of curse words and vileness that there's no point in trying to have a conversation with them.
It's possible to disagree strongly and still be civil. Just because you can cuss and carry on here doesn't mean you should make it a habit or that it should be your go-to.
To summarize, I haven't exactly been reading his posts thoroughly and because he's being such a fucktard, I haven't felt the need for apologies or corrections.
All that said, when I said, "So Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?," I didn't necessarily mean Sigmund or Sigmund alone. I was actually thinking of the folks who had leapt upon "Champions of Honor" as ridiculous but had let another player contribution, one I found more ridiculous, slide without comment.
Seanchai
Quote from: two_fishes;361828... I think the Dwarven Bouncers is kind of awesome. Think of the implication: dwarven drinking culture is both so sophisticated and so raucous, that they've developed a whole monastic order devoted solely to keeping things in line.
My thoughts as well. Plus, it was actually meant to be kinda silly, to the point where the followers were required to branch into the Drunken Master prestige class at 10th level. I was envisioning a kinda short, stocky Jackie Chan with a long beard when I made it.
Quote from: Seanchai;361834I learned something about this place: It's at its best when you learn how to ignore folks or, at the very least, skim their posts. The type of person I generally ignore is one who is rabid. That can mean unreasoning, such as some of the extreme 4e haters, or just so full of curse words and vileness that there's no point in trying to have a conversation with them.
Except you constantly answer people seemingly fitting your description here. Hell, that's why you're still here, isn't it? Flaming people you think are rabid assholes. Try applying your own words of hypocritical wisdom for once and maybe we'll see less of your crazy trips into obsessive retard territory, and more actual arguments on your part. In other words: learn to move on, dude.
Quote from: Seanchai;361834What kind of response do you think someone who launches into obscenities and attacks such as, "You really are a miserable prick," when a mistake has been made deserves? Attention? A retraction? An apology? Some kind of reward for being an infantile asshat?
If you bumped into someone on the sidewalk and they turned and said, "You miserable prick! You cock! You flaming asshole!" just how quickly and profusely would you apologize?
I learned something about this place: It's at its best when you learn how to ignore folks or, at the very least, skim their posts. The type of person I generally ignore is one who is rabid. That can mean unreasoning, such as some of the extreme 4e haters, or just so full of curse words and vileness that there's no point in trying to have a conversation with them.
It's possible to disagree strongly and still be civil. Just because you can cuss and carry on here doesn't mean you should make it a habit or that it should be your go-to.
To summarize, I haven't exactly been reading his posts thoroughly and because he's being such a fucktard, I haven't felt the need for apologies or corrections.
All that said, when I said, "So Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?," I didn't necessarily mean Sigmund or Sigmund alone. I was actually thinking of the folks who had leapt upon "Champions of Honor" as ridiculous but had let another player contribution, one I found more ridiculous, slide without comment.
Seanchai
You quoted me when you wrote it, referencing what I said specifically. If you didn't mean to single me out then maybe you should have said so. Are you so thin skinned that you can't handle some obscenities, or do you not know what they mean? What you're saying is that it's ok to insult someone, as long as you don't swear while doing it, am I understanding this correctly? By the way, I'd just like to point out that I said you would try this tactic, you are very predictable. You never feel like apologies or retractions because you're apparently so arrogant you don't feel capable of making mistakes. Maybe if these horrible curse words offend you so much you should start making use of the RPG.net forums instead so your delicate sensibilities won't be injured. All the same, everyone here knows what kind of troll you are, so just keep acting unjustifiably smug, it's pretty much your only refuge anyway.
Quote from: Seanchai;361834What kind of response do you think someone who launches into obscenities and attacks such as, "You really are a miserable prick," when a mistake has been made deserves? Attention? A retraction? An apology? Some kind of reward for being an infantile asshat?
If you bumped into someone on the sidewalk and they turned and said, "You miserable prick! You cock! You flaming asshole!" just how quickly and profusely would you apologize?
I learned something about this place: It's at its best when you learn how to ignore folks or, at the very least, skim their posts. The type of person I generally ignore is one who is rabid. That can mean unreasoning, such as some of the extreme 4e haters, or just so full of curse words and vileness that there's no point in trying to have a conversation with them.
It's possible to disagree strongly and still be civil. Just because you can cuss and carry on here doesn't mean you should make it a habit or that it should be your go-to.
To summarize, I haven't exactly been reading his posts thoroughly and because he's being such a fucktard, I haven't felt the need for apologies or corrections.
All that said, when I said, "So Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?," I didn't necessarily mean Sigmund or Sigmund alone. I was actually thinking of the folks who had leapt upon "Champions of Honor" as ridiculous but had let another player contribution, one I found more ridiculous, slide without comment.
Seanchai
Awesome variation. I don't mean to give your game away, but really, man, this is fucking spectacular.
Quote from: Aos;361844Awesome variation. I don't mean to give your game away, but really, man, this is fucking spectacular.
I love the part where he rants about people resorting to insults and obscenities versus the part where he calls Sigmund a fucktard, personally. Beautiful. Subtle. Very subtle.
It's always sad to see such a legendary troll fallen on hard times.
Quote from: Aos;361844Awesome variation. I don't mean to give your game away, but really, man, this is fucking spectacular.
I think a person that loses his tempers after a long arguments, and the person that got him there, are of about the same quality.
I don't think you are a troll Seanchai (and I say this as someone who has disagreed with some of the things you have said) but I don't see any point in carrying on with this.
Regards,
David R
I've never claimed to be a towering pinnacle of maturity and intellectual prowess, so I apologize if my abuse of the liberal language policy on this forum has bothered anyone. I swear alot in real life conversation too, although I do a fairly good job of restraining myself when younger folks are about. Drove my ex-wife nuts... luckily my current girlfriend swears almost as much as I do. Out of respect for ya'all I will endeavor to restrain myself somewhat in the future, and Seanchai, if my obscenities truly bothered you I apologize for that as well. I am capable of making a point without going all Richard Pryor, it just comes out when I get my dander up.
Quote from: two_fishes;361823I understand what you're saying but I would feel a little constrained playing that way. It's almost like I have to come to table knowing everything there is to know about my PC and must play him within that knowledge. On the other hand, if I have a flash of inspiration about my character during play, and I'm able to bring that into the fiction, it's like I've just discovered something new and interesting about that character. I really enjoy bringing a PC to the table with just scraps on information about who he is and where he's from, and a lot of unanswered questions to be filled in later.
Well, a lot of that "filling in" I was talking about has to do with finding aspects of your character, I just think you and I are willing to accept a different level of setting molding that occurs as a part of that character discovery.
Quote from: Sigmund;361867I've never claimed to be a towering pinnacle of maturity and intellectual prowess, so I apologize if my abuse of the liberal language policy on this forum has bothered anyone. I swear alot in real life conversation too, although I do a fairly good job of restraining myself when younger folks are about. Drove my ex-wife nuts... luckily my current girlfriend swears almost as much as I do. Out of respect for ya'all I will endeavor to restrain myself somewhat in the future, and Seanchai, if my obscenities truly bothered you I apologize for that as well. I am capable of making a point without going all Richard Pryor, it just comes out when I get my dander up.
Dude, don't feel the need to censor yourself in the slightest, that's not what this place is about.
And especially don't do it on Seanchai's account. He doesn't give a flying fuck, it's just another troll tactic, and nothing more. He's a useless sack of shit, and this whole goddamn board would be a lot better off if people would realize he's just here to start argument with everyone, and ignore his ass.
Seanchai is not a being that possess morals or opinions or principles to be offended. His stance in any given situation is deliberately chosen to be as contrary to the thrust of the thread as possible, for maximum public agitation. That's how he works, that's how he has always worked, going back like a fucking decade now.
Just ignore him, and go about your business.
Quote from: J Arcane;361870Dude, don't feel the need to censor yourself in the slightest, that's not what this place is about.
And especially don't do it on Seanchai's account. He doesn't give a flying fuck, it's just another troll tactic, and nothing more. He's a useless sack of shit, and this whole goddamn board would be a lot better off if people would realize he's just here to start argument with everyone, and ignore his ass.
Seanchai is not a being that possess morals or opinions or principles to be offended. His stance in any given situation is deliberately chosen to be as contrary to the thrust of the thread as possible, for maximum public agitation. That's how he works, that's how he has always worked, going back like a fucking decade now.
Just ignore him, and go about your business.
I got ya, but really I apologize for me, because I do get bummed that I let folks get to me like that and bring the barbarian out in me. Plus, I like this forum because I like the discussions and lots of the folks that participate in them so I want to express respect for ya'all too.
I agree with J.
Anybody who gets offended about the use of this or that word on this forum really isn't at the right place and needs to search for some PG-rated conversation elsewhere. This is definitely not the board where one would use flowery language, various degrees of understatements and politically correct phrases to bring the point any more home than it otherwise would be.
You don't have to apologize to anyone, Sigmund.
Seanchai just brings it up to claim some sort of moral high ground he cannot possibly stand on in the first place. His years of baiting and trolling on these very boards will make any regular here laugh at the very idea.
I'm deeply offended.
Also, I'm wearing pants made entirely out of doughnuts. The difficult part is getting the holes lined up right. Furthermore, it's important to avoid police- for a variety of reasons.
Quote from: Benoist;361881I agree with J.
Anybody who gets offended about the use of this or that word on this forum really isn't at the right place and needs to search for some PG-rated conversation elsewhere. This is definitely not the board where one would use flowery language, various degrees of understatements and politically correct phrases to bring the point any more home than it otherwise would be.
You don't have to apologize to anyone, Sigmund.
Seanchai just brings it up to claim some sort of moral high ground he cannot possibly stand on in the first place. His years of baiting and trolling on these very boards will make any regular here laugh at the very idea.
Oh I know, but I own my behavior, and he has to own his. Glad it doesn't bother ya'all though.
Quote from: Aos;361885I'm deeply offended.
Also, I'm wearing pants made entirely out of doughnuts. The difficult part is getting the holes lined up right. Furthermore, it's important to avoid police- for a variety of reasons.
You might also want to avoid Weight Watchers meetings, Overeaters Anonymous, and Homer Simpson.
Quote from: Benoist;361836Except you constantly answer people seemingly fitting your description here.
You're confusing me with someone else.
Quote from: Benoist;361849I love the part where he rants about people resorting to insults and obscenities versus the part where he calls Sigmund a fucktard, personally.
I do occasionally curse and insult. It is not, however, my modus operandi. Which is markedly different than others here, who couldn't be civil with the Virgin Mary hovering over them.
Seanchai
Quote from: Sigmund;361837If you didn't mean to single me out then maybe you should have said so.
Maybe you shouldn't respond like a jackass.
Quote from: Sigmund;361837Are you so thin skinned that you can't handle some obscenities, or do you not know what they mean?
Neither. I curse like a sailor in real life. I don't mistake cursing for conversation, however (much less debate).
Quote from: Sigmund;361837You never feel like apologies or retractions because you're apparently so arrogant you don't feel capable of making mistakes.
I've actually done both here.
Again, if you bumped into someone in the street and they cursed you out, would you leap to apologize? I doubt it. Not because of the language used per se, but because their response to a small thing was initially and instantly so hostile.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361941You're confusing me with someone else.
Who did you just answer to right now? Me and Sigmund. And you didn't pick any posts with actual on-topic substance, mind you, but posts directly critical of your behavior instead.
Either we fit your description of assholes and you've just proven my point that you keep answering to people you say you learned how to ignore, or we don't, and there was no point to bring up the whole tirade on how you're better off ignoring these assholes in the first place.
Nope. I daresay I'm right on the money, here. Logic's a bitch, ain't it?
Quote from: Seanchai;361943Maybe you shouldn't respond like a jackass.
Says someone who responds like a jackass all the time. Way to be a hypocrite. And ya know what, maybe I shouldn't have. I'll own that, but none of that has anything to do with you insulting me undeservedly in the first place. You're simply trying to engage in misdirection to take the focus off yourself. It's not working.
QuoteNeither. I curse like a sailor in real life. I don't mistake cursing for conversation, however (much less debate).
Well an insult is an insult whether cursing is involved or not. That was my response to your insult. I'm not sure how you expect people to respond to insults here or anywhere, but it seems what you expect and what is most likely to really occur are fairly mismatched. Plus, I'm curious now why you seem to be saying you wanted a conversation. Do you often insult people in the normal course of conversation?
QuoteI've actually done both here.
Again, if you bumped into someone in the street and they cursed you out, would you leap to apologize? I doubt it. Not because of the language used per se, but because their response to a small thing was initially and instantly so hostile.
Seanchai
Of course not, but we're not walking down the street and you didn't bump into me. You took something I said, by quoting it directly, and deliberately belittled it, inaccurately to boot, and then have argued about how you either weren't wrong to do so or how whether you were or not doesn't matter in regards to acknowledging your mistake because of how I responded. Both of those arguments are pathetic. However, if you don't mind looking pathetic then it's certainly no skin off my nose. More power to ya.
Quote from: two_fishes;361823I really enjoy bringing a PC to the table with just scraps on information about who he is and where he's from, and a lot of unanswered questions to be filled in later.
So do I, actually The difference of opinion arises over how those questions are answered.
My feeling is, if you want your character to be a member of an organization in the game-world, then join one or found one. Creating an organization, or any other setting detail, on the fly and introducing it may help create 'good fiction' for you, but I prefer exploring the setting, which means dealing with it on its own terms. The world is what it is, and my ability to change that as a player comes from my in-character choices, not out-of-character creation.
Quote from: Sigmund;361249I included a history and guidelines for an order of dwarven monks that were dedicated to keeping their fellow dwarves safe from their own tempers while engaging in heavy drinking.
Way cool.
Quote from: The Shaman;361951So do I, actually The difference of opinion arises over how those questions are answered.
My feeling is, if you want your character to be a member of an organization in the game-world, then join one or found one. Creating an organization, or any other setting detail, on the fly and introducing it may help create 'good fiction' for you, but I prefer exploring the setting, which means dealing with it on its own terms. The world is what it is, and my ability to change that as a player comes from my in-character choices, not out-of-character creation.
I'm with you exactly. The dwarven thing I made I did during chargen, but if I were to want to find something like that after starting I think you're right on the money that founding it would make for even better RPing and would lead to great session ideas for the GM. Different strokes I suppose, although I suspect even folks like two_fishes would be into this as well as the way the example describes.
Quote from: CRKrueger;360938You don't need to share narrative control about the setting, (...) don't need to have every player write down a 25-page backstory (...)
What you need is a good GM. [and players - Ed.]
I've said it before and I'll say it again, most of this new school RPG design philosophy is trying to code into mechanics a crutch for poor GMs.
You've got my complete agreement there.
Quote from: Benoist;361944Either we fit your description of assholes...
You're borderline. We've had this discussion before.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361957You're borderline. We've had this discussion before.
Seanchai
The sentiment is still quite reciprocal. :)
Quote from: Sigmund;361948Says someone who responds like a jackass all the time.
I think you're confusing content with approach.
Quote from: Sigmund;361948You're simply trying to engage in misdirection to take the focus off yourself.
Shrug. I don't need misdirection.
Quote from: Sigmund;361948That was my response to your insult.
That's the thing - I didn't insult you.
Quote from: Sigmund;361948Plus, I'm curious now why you seem to be saying you wanted a conversation. Do you often insult people in the normal course of conversation?
No. And, again, nor did I insult you.
Quote from: Sigmund;361948You took something I said, by quoting it directly, and deliberately belittled it...
Let's stop here. Saying
your idea is silly is insulting you? Really?
Moreover, I basically said it was silly. I didn't jump up and down, pile on the hyperbole, etc.. I didn't say, "Jesus! This is the worst fucking idea I've ever come across! What mouth-breaking moron came up with that piece of drivel?!" I said it wasn't any better than Champions of Honor.
If you're going to get that bent out of shape over a comment about an idea you had, I think the Internet is the wrong place for you, much less this forum.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;361960I think you're confusing content with approach.
Irrelevant and inaccurate.
QuoteShrug. I don't need misdirection.
Yet you're using it anyway.
QuoteThat's the thing - I didn't insult you.
So you directly quote me posting this...
Quote from: Sigmund... I was a player in a campaign and created a group called "Dwarven Bouncers".
and respond...
Quote from: SeanchaiSo Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?
Whereupon AM posts...
Quote from: Abyssal MawPeople do this all the time- they come up with little details about their pre-campaign character's life- ("my character used to be a part of a mercenary company" or "back when my character was still learning magic..") in every single campaign of every edition I've ever played.
which you quote directly and respond...
Quote from: SeanchaiYeah. I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better.
Seanchai
and you're telling me this was not meant to insult or ridicule? After that you went on to try and show how you were justified in ridiculing me by posting stuff like...
Quote from: SeanchaiAs we can see, making fun of people's contributions is not the way to a happy group or happy players. People can have wildly disproportionate responses to the word "silly" when they feel vulnerable.
... as if you're teaching a class on internet etiquette, and further reposting....
Quote from: Seanchai"I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better."
"As we can see, making fun of people's contributions is not the way to a happy group or happy players. People can have wildly disproportionate responses to the word "silly" when they feel vulnerable."
Seanchai
... as if your unfounded responses actually speak for themselves, when your whole basis is founded on a completely inaccurate reading of what I wrote.
QuoteNo. And, again, nor did I insult you.
If your answer to my above question is really no and your posts were not meant to insult then I retract everything I've posted. I don't yet believe that is the case though, especially since others seemed to perceive it as a deliberate slam as well. I believe you meant to somehow be witty at my expense and failed miserably because you thought I wrote something I in fact didn't. I called you on this, including liberal amounts of profanity because I can and enjoy doing so, and you have yet to even acknowledge that you even might have been mistaken in the first place.
QuoteLet's stop here. Saying your idea is silly is insulting you? Really?
Moreover, I basically said it was silly. I didn't jump up and down, pile on the hyperbole, etc.. I didn't say, "Jesus! This is the worst fucking idea I've ever come across! What mouth-breaking moron came up with that piece of drivel?!" I said it wasn't any better than Champions of Honor.
If you're going to get that bent out of shape over a comment about an idea you had, I think the Internet is the wrong place for you, much less this forum.
Seanchai
No, what I got bent out of shape over was you first ridiculing what I posted then trying to justify said ridicule by inaccurately implying I had been making fun of the example's "Champions of Honor" in the first place, thereby apparently justifying your ridicule in your own mind at least. You make a big issue out of calling people on their shit around here, but when you get called on yours suddenly I'm the one over-reacting or blowing things out of proportion. Let me throw ya a bone... maybe I am over-reacting, but once again that's a misdirection because it doesn't excuse your initial behavior. My over-reactions would make both of us assholes instead of just you. I'll go ahead and own that, I can be an asshole sometimes and I'm also the first one to admit it. Whether you are brave enough to own your behavior is up to you.
...Well, I wasn't insulting you, anyhow. I still think it's a good technique.
The point is: it's just a technique, not a rule.We only get all the hand wringing and tears here because it appeared in a D&D4E book, but that kinda of advice has appeared in other books, other game systems before. It's just Robin Laws doing the thing he always does.
They have cheap clean hookers in Vegas.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361967...Well, I wasn't insulting you, anyhow. I still think it's a good technique.
The point is: it's just a technique, not a rule.We only get all the hand wringing and tears here because it appeared in a D&D4E book, but that kinda of advice has appeared in other books, other game systems before. It's just Robin Laws doing the thing he always does.
No, I didn't take anything you posted as an insult. You didn't post anything insulting and you didn't reference me directly anyway. I don't even disagree with you, although I would prefer the approach The Shaman mentioned rather than just making up campaign details on the fly... unless one were making up said details as a part of a bluff, like I described in my original post to this thread.
Quote from: Aos;361971They have cheap clean hookers in Vegas.
Reno too.
Here's a perfect example of a good use of the technique from my Friday night game:
The PCs learn there is a doppleganger in the area helping out the evil dragon. One of the PCs, whose backstory involved being enslaved to a necromancer, mentions something about his former master having a doppleganger ally and wondering aloud if it was the same guy.
The doppleganger ally had never been mentioned before in his background; the player just threw it in as a suggestion. It will actually work great, because the whole point of the doppleganger character is that he is a death cultist (though the PCs haven't discovered that yet) which would make him a natural ally of necromancers.
The reason I like it here is:
A) The player only suggested it as a possibility, not a foregone conclusion.
B) He took pre-existing pieces of the campaign and suggested how to tie them together, rather than just inventing random shit (like elite groups of champions) out of thin air.
C) It adds to the story and motivates his character, but isn't something that gives him any kind of unfair advantage (like, say, inventing a poorly-named group of elite champions).
Quote from: Sigmund;361964...and you're telling me this was not meant to insult or ridicule?
Yep, that's what I'm telling you. Moreover, I'm still waiting for the part where I insult
you. I basically said your idea was silly and that those making fun of other's ideas generally can't do much better themselves. And, again, I did so in a rather matter-of-fact, unspectacular manner. If you consider that an insult, ridicule, or directed at you as a person, well, shrug.
Quote from: Sigmund;361964I called you on this...
No. You overreacted and involved a lot of needless profanity and personal attacks. If that makes you feel better about yourself and the situation, okay. It is not, however, some kind of victory outside of that.
Seanchai
Quote from: jgants;361984C) It adds to the story and motivates his character, but isn't something that gives him any kind of unfair advantage (like, say, inventing a poorly-named group of elite champions).
I'm not sure how the example gave the player an unfair advantage. It didn't say he was asking for more dice, or that being a member of the order would grant him special privilege. It seemed to be something added to give some colour and meaning to his persuade roll (or diplomacy, or whatever) and that's it.
Quote from: two_fishes;362091I'm not sure how the example gave the player an unfair advantage. It didn't say he was asking for more dice, or that being a member of the order would grant him special privilege. It seemed to be something added to give some colour and meaning to his persuade roll (or diplomacy, or whatever) and that's it.
In the example given there is no unfair advanatge, it was just the player being creative and the suggestion that the Dm honor that creativity. All technique. So I agree.
Quote from: Seanchai;362084Yep, that's what I'm telling you. Moreover, I'm still waiting for the part where I insult you. I basically said your idea was silly and that those making fun of other's ideas generally can't do much better themselves. And, again, I did so in a rather matter-of-fact, unspectacular manner. If you consider that an insult, ridicule, or directed at you as a person, well, shrug.
No. You overreacted and involved a lot of needless profanity and personal attacks. If that makes you feel better about yourself and the situation, okay. It is not, however, some kind of victory outside of that.
Seanchai
Ya know, I've changed my mind. I thought what you posted was done so in a smug and pretentious way, but regardless I will accept what you post at face value and say that I retract what I posted and apologize for the "needless profanity and personal attacks".
Quote from: Sigmund;362113Ya know, I've changed my mind. I thought what you posted was done so in a smug and pretentious way, but regardless I will accept what you post at face value and say that I retract what I posted and apologize for the "needless profanity and personal attacks".
I appreciate it, but that's not necessary.
Seanchai
Quote from: Benoist;361881You don't have to apologize to anyone, Sigmund.
Seanchai just brings it up to claim some sort of moral high ground he cannot possibly stand on in the first place. His years of baiting and trolling on these very boards will make any regular here laugh at the very idea.
You know...a lot of people here call Seanchai a troll...I honestly don't see it...just like Cavscout, it seems his only real crime is disagreeing with the wrong people persistently.
Or maybe I'm just not reading the really juicy threads...I dunno.
Incidentally, I think Sigmund was right though..."Champions of Honor" is fucking stupid.
You might as well call them something equally generic, like "The Lions of Purity" or the "The Golden Knights of Lawful Goodness" or "The Gladiators of Table Etiquette"
Personally, I can't wait until they go to Mirror World, where the Champions of Dishonor all have goatees and reign with a tyrannical, mailed fist. Ooooh....
That is pure gold, right there. I should probably be reaching for my notepad, ready to scrawl the necessary notation.
Quote from: Shazbot79;362258You know...a lot of people here call Seanchai a troll...I honestly don't see it...just like Cavscout seems his only real crime is disagreeing with the wrong people persistently.
I'm not surprised by this either.
QuoteOr maybe I'm just not reading the really juicy threads...I dunno.
Incidentally, I think Sigmund was right though..."Champions of Honor" is fucking stupid.
Then apparently you're not very good at thinkin.
QuoteYou might as well call them something equally generic, like "The Lions of Purity" or the "The Golden Knights of Lawful Goodness" or "The Gladiators of Table Etiquette"
So what would be the brilliant and stylish name you would come up with?
Quote from: Seanchai;362149I appreciate it, but that's not necessary.
Seanchai
I know.
Quote from: Shazbot79;362258You know...a lot of people here call Seanchai a troll...I honestly don't see it...just like Cavscout seems his only real crime is disagreeing with the wrong people persistently.
"Troll" has come to mean "people who don't agree with me even though I told them to." It's a meaningless term these days.
Seanchai
Quote from: jgants;361984Here's a perfect example of a good use of the technique from my Friday night game:
The PCs learn there is a doppleganger in the area helping out the evil dragon. One of the PCs, whose backstory involved being enslaved to a necromancer, mentions something about his former master having a doppleganger ally and wondering aloud if it was the same guy.
The doppleganger ally had never been mentioned before in his background; the player just threw it in as a suggestion. It will actually work great, because the whole point of the doppleganger character is that he is a death cultist (though the PCs haven't discovered that yet) which would make him a natural ally of necromancers.
The reason I like it here is:
A) The player only suggested it as a possibility, not a foregone conclusion.
B) He took pre-existing pieces of the campaign and suggested how to tie them together, rather than just inventing random shit (like elite groups of champions) out of thin air.
C) It adds to the story and motivates his character, but isn't something that gives him any kind of unfair advantage (like, say, inventing a poorly-named group of elite champions).
This is a great example. I would welcome this kind of player involvement as well because of A, B, and C.
Quote from: Sigmund;362274So what would be the brilliant and stylish name you would come up with?
"The Stonecutters"
Quote from: Seanchai;362300"Troll" has come to mean "people who don't agree with me even though I told them to." It's a meaningless term these days.
Seanchai
Turns out this community is full of pompous ass-hats.
Quote from: Shazbot79;362380Turns out this community is full of pompous ass-hats.
One of us! One of us!
Quote from: Shazbot79;362380Turns out this community is full of pompous ass-hats.
And you're a useless, ignorant twat, more interested in his own false sense of superiority than any actual reality.
Go back through Seanchai's logs and find me one bloody common thread in any post he's ever made to this site. You can't. I called him a troll, because that's what he is, the very definition of one: a random asshat on the internet who seeks only to create argument wherever he goes.
He's been known for this behavior in RPG circles for years.
I'd watch out who you play white knight for, it might come around to bit you in the ass.
Quote from: J Arcane;362382And you're a useless, ignorant twat, more interested in his own false sense of superiority than any actual reality.
*sniff* Does that mean you're not coming to my brithday party? : (
(QUOTE)
"I bang vigorously on my shield, showing them the emblem of my warrior order."
Ed has never before referenced and emblem on his shield, but since it's his character, he can introduce it without any adjustment by you [the DM].
"Do you recognize this symbol?" Ed exclaims, in his deep Erekam voice. "It identifies me as a member of the Champions of Honor!" Do you not know us?"
You [the DM] have never heard of the Champions of Honor. You reach for your notepad, ready to scrawl the necessary notation.
In character as the indiffierent guard, you scratch your head and say, "We don't receive visitors hereabouts, stranger."
"Why, for a hundred years the Champpions of Honor have protected the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!"
(QUOTE)
DM in character: Guard: "oh yeah I remember now, your the group that was disbanded by the king for ritual acts of fornication with farm animals. How sad."
DM out of character: "Ed, if you want to run a game yourself I'm their, if not at least run background info by me BEFORE this damn game."
Quote from: raeth;362495DM in character: Guard: "oh yeah I remember now, your the group that was disbanded by the king for ritual acts of fornication with farm animals. How sad."
DM out of character: "Ed, if you want to run a game yourself I'm their, if not at least run background info by me BEFORE this damn game."
this is the sort of patronizing attitude that i mentioned bothered me upthread. your response is to completely pervert the player's contribution to the fiction and you don't seem to have any reason beyond, "i'm the dm and it's my game, so i'm the only one who's allowed to create elements of the fictional game world on the fly." if you do have a reason, like that mentioned upthread, where someone said that sort of play ruins his sense of immersion, that's something i can accept. but objecting to it because... why? it intrudes on your authori-TEH? that strikes me as childish, especially given the insulting way you suggest subverting the contribution.
Quote from: two_fishes;362555this is the sort of patronizing attitude that i mentioned bothered me upthread. your response is to completely pervert the player's contribution to the fiction and you don't seem to have any reason beyond, "i'm the dm and it's my game, so i'm the only one who's allowed to create elements of the fictional game world on the fly." if you do have a reason, like that mentioned upthread, where someone said that sort of play ruins his sense of immersion, that's something i can accept. but objecting to it because... why? it intrudes on your authori-TEH? that strikes me as childish, especially given the insulting way you suggest subverting the contribution.
Get off your fucking cross. Not everything is "OMFG! GM Opressorz!".
Quote from: jeff37923;362601Get off your fucking cross. Not everything is "OMFG! GM Opressorz!".
Speaking of childish.
Quote from: jeff37923;362601Get off your fucking cross. Not everything is "OMFG! GM Opressorz!".
I agree with Two Fishes, actually. If a DM performs such a dick-move in-game and manages to be patronizing out of it as well, then he sure isn't the smartest pea in the pod, so to speak.
I for one welcome that kind of stuff at the game table. I just roll with it, and in the end, it makes for a better game play. I don't think anybody's talking about a player modifying the adventure as it unfolds, here, but rather fleshing out his/her character background as he goes, and that's a very good thing, IMO. That makes it relevant to the events at hand, rather than writing some 15-page bio out of the game, with little-to-no chance of it ever being relevant to the adventure the character goes through.
Quote from: Benoist;362605I agree with Two Fishes, actually. If a DM performs such a dick-move in-game and manages to be patronizing out of it as well, then he sure isn't the smartest pea in the pod, so to speak.
I for one welcome that kind of stuff at the game table. I just roll with it, and in the end, it makes for a better game play. I don't think anybody's talking about a player modifying the adventure as it unfolds, here, but rather fleshing out his/her character background as he goes, and that's a very good thing, IMO. That makes it relevant to the events at hand, rather than writing some 15-page bio out of the game, with little-to-no chance of it ever being relevant to the adventure the character goes through.
Sorry to do some copypasta, but I addressed this on page 4 (and quoted below). Typically I find a lot more gamers willing to be Players than GMs, so when someone does volunteer to take the time and effort to GM games, that should be respected by the Players in that game.
(Cue wails and cries of GM Oppression...)
Quote from: jeff37923;361441First off, there is nothing wrong with saying "No" to your Players if you are GM.
I don't mind Player input for a campaign as long as it is A) Not an attempt to gain a special advantage over other Players, B) Not an attempt to game the system, C) Run by me as GM for my approval, and D) The input fits in with the campaign setting genre and base idea. It also helps to talk to the GM about these additions before the game starts and not just drop them into the middle of the game while in session.
The reason for A) and B) is because there are Munchkins and Twinks out there that will show up in your game and try to dominate the group, which tends to drive other Players away from the group.
The reason for C) and D) is because as GM running a game in a setting that is your own since you are running it means that you have ownership over that setting during that campaign. Too many cooks spoil the soup and having non-genre conventions show up mid-campaign (like magic in a Traveller game) or powerful associations not accounted for (like a Player proclaiming that his character in a group of ragamuffins is actually the God-King) can really fuck up whatever the GM has had planned or was running for the campaign. The Players do not know what the GM has planned, and shouldn't if they want to fully enjoy the campaign, thus they do not know how the added material will affect the campaign.
I'm no advocate of wails against "GM Oppression" Jeff, you know that.
Now, that said, I think the crux of the issue has more to do with your points C and D above.
I guess it once again comes down to the sort of synergy there is between the players and GM, to me. If I don't know the guys I'm playing with, I'll be more than wary to allow them to come up with all sorts of set elements, this group or that relationship, adding to their characters background without them running their ideas through me before-hand. If, however, I know the guys I'm playing with and know we're on the same page (via pre-game sessions, for instance), then I'll be totally okay with them coming up with stuff like this in-game, so long as it doesn't impact the actual events of the game directly. I'll then run with it, incorporate it to the game as it unfolds, and, if constructive, might allow this or that background element to impact the game itself down the road.
QuoteTypically I find a lot more gamers willing to be Players than GMs, so when someone does volunteer to take the time and effort to GM games, that should be respected by the Players in that game.
Unless, of course, you make it clear that your game will be endorsing some forms of group creativity, using the group as the final authority rather than solely the GM on more minor matters.
I usually find the best GMs, when running for a new group, always give a little spiel like "Hey, this is how I run things, this is what I expect. Is this understood and cool with everyone before we begin, and do you have any suggestions?" Those types of GMs understand why authority is distributed the way it is for a given game and respect the position and the responsibility it entails, rather than just using the position as an excuse for being able to make decisions on a whim because they feel like it.
I also don't understand this allusion to campaign-changing edits by players mid-adventure. Most games do not distribute that type of narrative authority unless they have a type of world-gen before hand, in which case everything is constructed so that it makes logical sense and to prevent contradictions/oddities. Every other game I know of that allows ad-hoc narrative power to players severely limits the type of changes that can be made (BW, for instance, allows the GM "secret notes" which are important aspects of the world that
cannot be altered by the players).
Quote from: Peregrin;362625I usually find the best GMs, when running for a new group, always give a little spiel like "Hey, this is how I run things, this is what I expect. Is this understood and cool with everyone before we begin, and do you have any suggestions?" Those types of GMs understand why authority is distributed the way it is for a given game and respect the position and the responsibility it entails, rather than just using the position as an excuse for being able to make decisions on a whim because they feel like it.
I'll one-up on this. It's actually a requirement for an excellent game, in my opinion. You have to have that kind of communication going on prior to, during, and after the game to makes sure that everyone's on the same page. When you do that, you create a group dynamic that can only participate to the game's awesomeness, in the end.
I don't care whether the name Champions of Honor is lame or not, and I certainly don't worry about my authori-tah. For me, it's just pure and simple Immersion.
In the official, WotC example, they start off with a player creating what his character's shield looks like. The player then goes on to create out of whole cloth an organization that has defended the citizens of the town for a hundred years and anointed his character as a member of that group. That's quite a retcon. What's next, reminding the gate guard of the ancient contract that allows a Champion of Honor to partake freely of the local maidens? As Peregrin stated, that level of Narrative Control on the fly isn't even present in Narrative games.
OTOH, you have a perfectly reasonable example given here in this board where a player ties together a established aspect of his character background, and an established aspect of the GM's setting. Unfortunately WotC didn't go with that example.
Later WotC adds in this little tidbit.
Quote from: 4E DMG2, Page 18Descriptive Control
When you grant partial descriptive control to your players, you allow them to specify what they see and hear in a scene.
DMs might prefer to make [combat] encounters off limits for descriptive control. Allowing players to add obstacles and features might unbalance carefully planned combats. A daring DM might let the PCs play in his sandbox if he or she feels confident enough to countermand advantages that players try to sneak into the situation.
First I'll just comment on the language. Apparently Descriptive Control is only for "daring" GM's who are "confident". Sheesh.
But then look at the core reason why you have to be a GM-god in order to allow this daring method: Players may try to sneak unbalancing advantages into their description. In other words: your players will spend more time thinking about the metagame of narrative description than actually playing their characters.
Original 4e is a Tactical RPG, but here's the DMG2, where we give you advice as to how to morph it into a Narrative RPG. Bleah
Maybe in DMG3 we'll actually hear about Immersion.:p I doubt it though. Edwards and other Forge-ites never did seem to quite grok why a Simulationist was a Simulationist. Pretty sure it was the obvious weakness of GNS theory regarding the S that caused Ron to give up on the whole thing altogether. The 4e design philosophy more and more does seem to be influenced by Forge theory. Too bad it's apparently being implemented by people who don't understand the concepts they're using.
Quote from: CRKrueger;362639Maybe in DMG3 we'll actually hear about Immersion.:p
Now that'd be interesting... :D
Quote from: Benoist;362624I'm no advocate of wails against "GM Oppression" Jeff, you know that.
I know, that comment was for others.
Quote from: Benoist;362624Now, that said, I think the crux of the issue has more to do with your points C and D above.
I guess it once again comes down to the sort of synergy there is between the players and GM, to me. If I don't know the guys I'm playing with, I'll be more than wary to allow them to come up with all sorts of set elements, this group or that relationship, adding to their characters background without them running their ideas through me before-hand. If, however, I know the guys I'm playing with and know we're on the same page (via pre-game sessions, for instance), then I'll be totally okay with them coming up with stuff like this in-game, so long as it doesn't impact the actual events of the game directly. I'll then run with it, incorporate it to the game as it unfolds, and, if constructive, might allow this or that background element to impact the game itself down the road.
That is the crux. The relationship between the Players and the GM can make or break this kind of campaign setting additional interaction. If you can trust your Players not to break the campaign, then that is a godsend. I have done quite a bit of FLGS public play and have had to deal with Twinks and Munchkins in those environments who were more than willing to break the campaign for their own advantage.
I really liked the farm animal subversion, myself.
Now I, as DM, would have just had the guard say he never heard of the CoH and make the PC roll a bluff check, since obviously the PC is lying because there is no CoH group in my campaign world (which is pretty much how I would say it at the table).
Quote from: jgants;362660Now I, as DM, would have just had the guard say he never heard of the CoH and make the PC roll a bluff check, since obviously the PC is lying because there is no CoH group in my campaign world (which is pretty much how I would say it at the table).
Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?
Quote from: Shazbot79;362379"The Stonecutters"
I'm not seeing where this inherently "cooler" than anything else.
Quote from: jgants;362660I really liked the farm animal subversion, myself.
Now I, as DM, would have just had the guard say he never heard of the CoH and make the PC roll a bluff check, since obviously the PC is lying because there is no CoH group in my campaign world (which is pretty much how I would say it at the table).
And which is what I mentioned at the earlier stages of the thread.
Quote from: raeth;362495(QUOTE)
"I bang vigorously on my shield, showing them the emblem of my warrior order."
Ed has never before referenced and emblem on his shield, but since it's his character, he can introduce it without any adjustment by you [the DM].
"Do you recognize this symbol?" Ed exclaims, in his deep Erekam voice. "It identifies me as a member of the Champions of Honor!" Do you not know us?"
You [the DM] have never heard of the Champions of Honor. You reach for your notepad, ready to scrawl the necessary notation.
In character as the indiffierent guard, you scratch your head and say, "We don't receive visitors hereabouts, stranger."
"Why, for a hundred years the Champpions of Honor have protected the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!"
(QUOTE)
DM in character: Guard: "oh yeah I remember now, your the group that was disbanded by the king for ritual acts of fornication with farm animals. How sad."
DM out of character: "Ed, if you want to run a game yourself I'm their, if not at least run background info by me BEFORE this damn game."
Quote from: two_fishes;362555this is the sort of patronizing attitude that i mentioned bothered me upthread. your response is to completely pervert the player's contribution to the fiction and you don't seem to have any reason beyond, "i'm the dm and it's my game, so i'm the only one who's allowed to create elements of the fictional game world on the fly." if you do have a reason, like that mentioned upthread, where someone said that sort of play ruins his sense of immersion, that's something i can accept. but objecting to it because... why? it intrudes on your authori-TEH? that strikes me as childish, especially given the insulting way you suggest subverting the contribution.
Quote from: two_fishes;362675Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?
I could turn the question around and ask why such thorough ownership of the fictional setting is so distasteful to you. Lets leave aside the OOC explanation, which is certainly valid in at least some circumstances wherein said DM might have an in-game reason for not wanting to allow such a group and becoming annoyed that the player is introducing such details without consulting the DM first, although I might go about saying it differently. After all, my reading of raeth's post is that the DM didn't initially object to the detail being introduced, or the existence of the group the player was claiming membership in on behalf of his character. What seemed to jump the shark was making the group so locally prominent and prestigious, possibly circumventing a challenge that the DM had planned for this encounter, or even allowing room for further "benefits" being called upon later on. What makes it ok for the player to introduce such a detail, unbidden, into the campaign world, but not ok for the DM to expand upon that fictional detail. Perhaps the group being out of favor actually plays into the DMs goals for the long-term game.
Edit: Folks can tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that while many of us don't have a problem with details being injected into a campaign by players, the example given to illustrate that concept is not a very good one.
Quote from: two_fishes;362675Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?
If you just take it for granted that people favor immersion and exploration of the fictional world, then all your bemused objections melt away.
Elliot's got the right of it, twofishes.
I'm surprised at the way how you phrased your question. "Ownership of the fictional setting" seems needlessly adversarial. It hardly describes the dynamic in most groups.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;362701If you just take it for granted that people favor immersion and exploration of the fictional world, then all your bemused objections melt away.
Exactly, that's simply the difference between Immersive Roleplaying and Narrative Roleplaying. If you prefer NRPG's, you have no problem with a character molding the setting at will to improve his story. If you prefer IRPG's, the reality of the setting being in flux to such a degree defeats the whole point of RPing in the first place. "Ownership", "agency" and all the other Narrative terms are essentially meaningless to an IRPGer. The players manipulate the setting
through the actions of their characters, they do not manipulate the setting directly, as a player, to further a narrative purpose.
Not referring to anyone in particular, but I have found that discussing this topic frequently shows that IRPGers tend to understand the NRPGer point of view, they just don't like playing that way. On the contrary, I think a lot of NRPGers simply don't get the IRPG point of view, tying Immersion/Sim in with railroading, GM power trips and the like. Again, I think that's mainly due to bad GMs. If you've never had an awesome Immersive campaign, it's probably hard to believe just how fun it can be.
Oh, I think people may not enjoy the immersive style. But I certainly agree that many criticisms of the "power arrangement" used to foster that style are misplaced, mainly coming from experiences with GM-centric "storytelling". Among people in whom the storytelling paradigm is deeply ingrained, it's easier to envision shared narration than moving away from story altogether.
Quote from: two_fishes;362555this is the sort of patronizing attitude that i mentioned bothered me upthread. your response is to completely pervert the player's contribution to the fiction and you don't seem to have any reason beyond, "i'm the dm and it's my game, so i'm the only one who's allowed to create elements of the fictional game world on the fly." if you do have a reason, like that mentioned upthread, where someone said that sort of play ruins his sense of immersion, that's something i can accept. but objecting to it because... why? it intrudes on your authori-TEH? that strikes me as childish, especially given the insulting way you suggest subverting the contribution.
All I can think of happening at my table, is the players with open mouthed expressions of confusion when the so called champions of honor are mentioned by some player out of the blue. But hell you want to roll with it- we could spin some plot about the unfair and untrue accusations that disbanded your champions group and create some compelling narrative and adventure securing your place in the kingdom once again. It sure would be nice to have some clue what this groups relation to the game world is though, (filling out the narrative so to speak), and generally for that, a considerate heads up talk with the GM before the game would seem somewhat appropriate to me.
The way in which elements of narrative are introduced in the example strikes me as synthetic and as with most if not all synthetic elements it tends towards destroying immersion. Another good example of this is the first iteration of skill challenges in 4e, where running an organic, (non-immersion breaking), challenge using the rules as they are is a near impossibility. But the point is a seamless immersion, (or more seamless, as the case probably is), requires a firmer built narrative that has less in game player input into world building, though this does not necessarily preclude working with the GM before games to build your characters place in the world. If however you are not so worried about immersion then I imagine the shared narrative technique building 'on the fly' as you say would work fine for your own games.
Quote from: Sigmund;362679And which is what I mentioned at the earlier stages of the thread.
Bwah? Are you kidding me?
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
They do!
They do!
Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
They do!
They do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who made Steve Gutenberg...a star?
They do!
This. (http://www.magnumopuspress.com/?page_id=8)
QuoteDM: "The duke seems very angry with you for barging into his meeting."
PC: "Nah, the duke is my friend, I've known him for years, and my character always barges in like that. He's cool with it."
DM: "The king asks you to get the herb Jandiar to complete the cure to the disease. It grows in the distant mounta- "
PC: "Nah, we don't need that, there's another herb called Pullouttamiass that works just as well. It grows in the forest 5 minutes from here."
DM: "The great red dragon pulls back to breathe fire."
PC: "I whip out a carrot and toss it at the dragon. As of 2 seconds ago, red dragons are deathly allergic to carrots and the irritation prevents them from using their breath weapon. Also 1 round later, the dragon dies. "
PS. With thanks to TheGamingDen (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50924&sid=0a9a1668aad6f5e030e1326c4bfa2ffb). :D
The actual example in the DMG2 gives no such benefit, though. (In fact the invention of the Champions of Honor basically cue the DM to come up with some ideas for the group's history and set up some bandit encounters, thus creating more detail for the campaign world).
I dont buy the immersion thing. (Or the hilarious acronyms "IRPG" or "NRPG").
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362809The actual example in the DMG2 gives no such benefit, though. (In fact the invention of the Champions of Honor basically cue the DM to come up with some ideas for the group's history and set up some bandit encounters, thus creating more detail for the campaign world).
I dont buy the immersion thing. (Or the hilarious acronyms "IRPG" or "NRPG").
How can it not give any benefit? The example mentions the PC group being challenged at the gate of a town. The player then introduces this alleged group his character is a member of and who's emblem is displayed on his shield that apparently has been prominently active in the very area the town occupies, protecting "the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!" How would the guards not have heard of such a group? The DM will now have to scramble to come up with why the guards either haven't heard of the group or why they didn't recognize the emblem. On top of all that, if the brief history of the group is allowed to stand, the DM would be hard pressed to further block the entrance of the party into the town, since the "Champions of Honor" is so instrumental in defending the region. This all would be fixed by simply giving the DM a heads-up and/or discussing actual details with the DM before introducing this fiction in-game.
What part of "the immersion thing" don't you get, we can try to help you understand.
Quote from: Sigmund;362833How can it not give any benefit? The example mentions the PC group being challenged at the gate of a town. The player then introduces this alleged group his character is a member of and who's emblem is displayed on his shield that apparently has been prominently active in the very area the town occupies, protecting "the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!" How would the guards not have heard of such a group? The DM will now have to scramble to come up with why the guards either haven't heard of the group or why they didn't recognize the emblem. On top of all that, if the brief history of the group is allowed to stand, the DM would be hard pressed to further block the entrance of the party into the town, since the "Champions of Honor" is so instrumental in defending the region. This all would be fixed by simply giving the DM a heads-up and/or discussing actual details with the DM before introducing this fiction in-game.
What part of "the immersion thing" don't you get, we can try to help you understand.
Well, to start with, the idea that the players should be blocked from entering the town. Or it all could be an elaborate bluff- maybe there really is no champions of honor, but the guard doesn't know for sure one way or the other. (Often enough, this is all that happens when a player makes something like this up- it's really part of a bluff. "We work for Big Lou, the great crimelord.. Oh you never heard of Big Lou?...")
But in the example given, the DM incoporates this. What they really get in the end is an extra bandit encounter.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362839Well, to start with, the idea that the players should be blocked from entering the town. Or it all could be an elaborate bluff- maybe there really is no champions of honor, but the guard doesn't know for sure one way or the other. (Often enough, this is all that happens when a player makes something like this up- it's really part of a bluff. "We work for Big Lou, the great crimelord.. Oh you never heard of Big Lou?...")
But in the example given, the DM incoporates this. What they really get in the end is an extra bandit encounter.
If the PCs shouldn't be blocked from entering the town, why were they challenged by the guards at the gate? The DM could simply have had the gates standing open and the guards watching folks enter in order to keep the peace and watch maybe for known fugitives or whatever. So, the fact the example includes the guards challenging the PCs indicates to me that at least a rudimentary level of assurance is required to be allowed to pass the gates. Rather than using the tools provided by the game itself (skills, feats, powers), the player chose to simply make shit up. As part of a bluff, it's expected that a player make shit up, and the DM has recourse to a rules-based procedure for dealing with that situation. That does not describe this situation as it has been quoted by Windjammer. In this example, the player is bypassing both the game rules and the challenge placed before them by the DM with the introduced fiction. If I were a player, especially the player of a character that has been designed to face and defeat exactly this kind of challenge (either through being a great bluff-artist, a skilled diplomat, or capable of magical compulsion), I would be disheartened by this kind of sabotaging of what to me would have been my opportunity to shine. As the DM I would admonish the player that details of this nature need to be discussed first as I might be placing these challenges in the group's way to either allow the other player's character a chance to exercise his/her strengths or to lead into another facet of the overall challenge. Now if the group had discussed their game before starting and it was then expressed that the DM and players were open to this kind of improvisation, then this example is perfectly valid. This idea is not expressed in the example as Windjammer quoted it, however. I'm not going to buy the DMG2 to find out, so if there's an excluded part of the example I'm not aware of please let me know.
Quote from: Sigmund;362841If the PCs shouldn't be blocked from entering the town, why were they challenged by the guards at the gate?
It's a DM technique for setting the tone, or giving the PCs a chance to establish themselvs in character through an introduction.
Quote from: Sigmund;362841The DM could simply have had the gates standing open and the guards watching folks enter in order to keep the peace and watch maybe for known fugitives or whatever. So, the fact the example includes the guards challenging the PCs indicates to me that at least a rudimentary level of assurance is required to be allowed to pass the gates.
Or a buff or diplomacy check! With some roleplaying attached, which is exactly what is happening...
Quote from: Sigmund;362841Rather than using the tools provided by the game itself (skills, feats, powers), the player chose to simply make shit up. As part of a bluff, it's expected that a player make shit up, and the DM has recourse to a rules-based procedure for dealing with that situation. That does not describe this situation as it has been quoted by Windjammer. In this example, the player is bypassing both the game rules and the challenge placed before them by the DM with the introduced fiction. If I were a player, especially the player of a character that has been designed to face and defeat exactly this kind of challenge (either through being a great bluff-artist, a skilled diplomat, or capable of magical compulsion), I would be disheartened by this kind of sabotaging of what to me would have been my opportunity to shine. As the DM I would admonish the player that details of this nature need to be discussed first as I might be placing these challenges in the group's way to either allow the other player's character a chance to exercise his/her strengths or to lead into another facet of the overall challenge. Now if the group had discussed their game before starting and it was then expressed that the DM and players were open to this kind of improvisation, then this example is perfectly valid. This idea is not expressed in the example as Windjammer quoted it, however. I'm not going to buy the DMG2 to find out, so if there's an excluded part of the example I'm not aware of please let me know.
I honestly don't care what you buy or don't. Any rules techniques suggested by Robin Laws are going to have improvisation and creativity specifically highlighted as technique, though.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;362701If you just take it for granted that people favor immersion and exploration of the fictional world, then all your bemused objections melt away.
Except allowing players to add input to the doesn't affect either.
Those who feel adding details to the world will affect their immersion in it don't have to add any details at all. They can participate on a thoroughly traditional level.
I'm not sure how players adding details prevents them from exploring, so I'll just point out again that the players aren't adding a great deal of detail to the world. They're not re-writing the map, so to speak. Moreover, from my experience, players add details relating to their characters, not to the world as a whole.
Seanchai
I'm okay with players adding details- just not in the middle of a play session. I follow the same guide line when it comes to making houserules- if there is something in place I wont change it in the middle of play.
I am also not married to either of these ways of doing things.
Quote from: Sigmund;362841That does not describe this situation as it has been quoted by Windjammer. (...) This idea is not expressed in the example as Windjammer quoted it, however. I'm not going to buy the DMG2 to find out, so if there's an excluded part of the example I'm not aware of please let me know.
There isn't. For completeness' sake, however, I'm going to give you the full info on Descriptive Control. I'll also update my OP accordingly.
DMG 2 CONTENT UPDATEQuote from: DMG 2, page 17 Descriptive Control
When you grant partial descriptive control to your players, you allow them to specify what they see and hear in a scene.
A daring DM might let the PCs play in this sandbox if he or she feels confident enough to countermand advantages that players try to sneak into the situation.
The DM's Workshop sidebars "Tentacle Temple" and "Forks in the Road" provide examples of descriptive control.
Ok folks, now for the examples. Not in quotation blocks because I hate all- italics.
-----------
DMG 2, page 18:
DM's Workshop: Tentacle TempleIn this example of a direct assertion, the party has entered a demon-occupied city."Do I see a watchtower?" Carlos asks you [the DM].
Before you can reply, Ben, feeling a creative surge, supplies an answer of his own: "Look! Over there! That horrible tower, rising from the central plateau! Oh, my goodness, its tiles writhe! And tentacles dangle from the spire!"
You might instinctively want to slap down this seizure of your narrative prerogative. Then you remember that you encouraged players to collaborate in building the world. You affirm Ben's idea by building on it.
"Yep, those tentacles, all right. A strange bird that looks like a black-feathered albatross circles slowly near the spire. Suddenly, a tentacle zaps out, like the tongue of a frog, and grabs the bird, pulling it into the tower. You hear a chewing noise."
"You mean the tower is alive?" Deena exclaims. She knows your DMing style indluces vivid details to encourage the PCs to move closer to explore. "Thanks a lot, Ben!" she jokes.
---------end of sidebar 1------------
DMG 2, page 17:
DM's Workshop: Forks in the RoadIn this example of solicited input, the players are travelling along an ancient road through a dense forest.[abbreviated. Players arrive at a fork in the road.]
This fork offers a decision point to the PCs, as well as a chance to tailor its branches to their interests. Ben and Deena dominated an earlier interaction scene, so you solicit input from Amy and Carlos.
"Amy, you've heard that something dangerous lies to the west. What is it?" [the DM asks]
Amy thinks for a moment. "Um, it's bird people. I hate bird people."
For a moment, you panic. You don't have stat blocks for any bird people. But you realize that [...you can winge it.] You affirm Amy's choice by adding a new detail.
"Oh yes," you reply. "They have a new leader, Radak, who has sworn vengeance on all mammals."
"No, you fucking twat. 'Mammals' is a fucking anachronism. I'll have none of that shit in MY game, DM.
Expelliarmus!," Amy yells. [Ok, I made that line up. Everything else is true to the original.]
[Rest of the sidebar compressed. The DM solicits the other player's input, Carlos', as to what lies east. After that's established...]
Now that the players have established their options, they debate the merits of the two choices: Do they head towards the hostile bird people, or do they explore the haunted pagoda?
---------End of sidebar 2---------------
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362846It's a DM technique for setting the tone, or giving the PCs a chance to establish themselvs in character through an introduction.
Indeed, which is exactly what I said as well.
QuoteOr a buff or diplomacy check! With some roleplaying attached, which is exactly what is happening...
Absolutely, and that would change the nature of the example entirely. However, making any kind of check at all was not included in the example, so I'm left with drawing the conclusion that using the tools provided in the rules was not what this hypothetical DM did in the example situation.
QuoteI honestly don't care what you buy or don't. Any rules techniques suggested by Robin Laws are going to have improvisation and creativity specifically highlighted as technique, though.
I'm not sure where I indicated that you do or even should care what I do or do not buy. I merely mentioned it to indicate that it's possible that my knowledge of this example is incomplete (if Windjammer excluded a portion in his quote) and meant to give you the opportunity to point that out if it were true. Also, I'm not sure why it's relevant that suggestions from Robin Laws include improvisation and creativity. The improvisation and creativity are not why this example is a poor one. Honestly, it would be very difficult to even play these games without those tools. What I dislike about this example is that it describes a situation that is dealt with entirely based on improvisation without recourse to the rules of the game (which is another indispensable tool of our hobby), when there are rules included to deal with the specific situation described. Personally, I would be inclined to include bonuses based on a player's creativity to a character's rolls to bypass a challenge of this nature, but I would be loathe to just ignore the rules completely just because a player jumps out with this kind of improvisation.
hmmm but making up all that shit is where I derive the most fun as a referee. Well that and humiliating the player characters to the point of tears.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362809The actual example in the DMG2 gives no such benefit, though.
Benefits aside, why are the players in Windjammer's examples trying to wreck the game? Or trying to avoid that particular challenge?
If the intent of the examples was to demonstrate that given some narrative input, the players could derail the game, well, yes, of course they can. But as I'm sure everyone here is already aware, players don't need narrative control to derail or destroy a game.
Of course, these are reductio ad absurdum. Let players add input to the game - which is, by the way, separating from allowing them to re-write elements of the game as is the case with the examples - and they'll add input about their characters and little else.
Seanchai
Quote from: Windjammer;362857There isn't. For completeness' sake, however, I'm going to give you the full info on Descriptive Control. I'll also update my OP accordingly.
DMG 2 CONTENT UPDATE
Ok folks, now for the examples. Not in quotation blocks because I hate all- italics.
-----------
DMG 2, page 18: DM's Workshop: Tentacle Temple
In this example of a direct assertion, the party has entered a demon-occupied city.
"Do I see a watchtower?" Carlos asks you [the DM].
Before you can reply, Ben, feeling a creative surge, supplies an answer of his own: "Look! Over there! That horrible tower, rising from the central plateau! Oh, my goodness, its tiles writhe! And tentacles dangle from the spire!"
You might instinctively want to slap down this seizure of your narrative prerogative. Then you remember that you encouraged players to collaborate in building the world. You affirm Ben's idea by building on it.
"Yep, those tentacles, all right. A strange bird that looks like a black-feathered albatross circles slowly near the spire. Suddenly, a tentacle zaps out, like the tongue of a frog, and grabs the bird, pulling it into the tower. You hear a chewing noise."
"You mean the tower is alive?" Deena exclaims. She knows your DMing style indluces vivid details to encourage the PCs to move closer to explore. "Thanks a lot, Ben!" she jokes.
---------end of sidebar 1------------
DMG 2, page 17: DM's Workshop: Forks in the Road
In this example of solicited input, the players are travelling along an ancient road through a dense forest.
[abbreviated. Players arrive at a fork in the road.]
This fork offers a decision point to the PCs, as well as a chance to tailor its branches to their interests. Ben and Deena dominated an earlier interaction scene, so you solicit input from Amy and Carlos.
"Amy, you've heard that something dangerous lies to the west. What is it?" [the DM asks]
Amy thinks for a moment. "Um, it's bird people. I hate bird people."
For a moment, you panic. You don't have stat blocks for any bird people. But you realize that [...you can winge it.] You affirm Amy's choice by adding a new detail.
"Oh yes," you reply. "They have a new leader, Radak, who has sworn vengeance on all mammals."
"No, you fucking twat. 'Mammals' is a fucking anachronism. I'll have none of that shit in MY game, DM. Expelliarmus!," Amy yells. [Ok, I made that line up. Everything else is true to the original.]
[Rest of the sidebar compressed. The DM solicits the other player's input, Carlos', as to what lies east. After that's established...]
Now that the players have established their options, they debate the merits of the two choices: Do they head towards the hostile bird people, or do they explore the haunted pagoda?
---------End of sidebar 2---------------
Now these examples are different, because in both it's stated that the DM had spoken of this kind of improv beforehand and had encouraged it. That's a whole different ball of wax. If that's the way they like to roll then rock on. I still stand by my opinion that the original example is a poor one.
Quote from: Sigmund;362681I could turn the question around and ask why such thorough ownership of the fictional setting is so distasteful to you.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say "distasteful."
I don't find it necessary. That is, gaming works - and works well - without a GM who possess total authority over all aspects of the game.
I believe that if a player would find the game more enjoyable and become more attached to it if he or she could add details, then, by all means, add details.
I enjoy the challenge of GMing in an environment of collaboration.
I believe collaboration makes for a stronger, more interesting game, setting, storyline, et al.
Seanchai
Quote from: two_fishes;362675Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?
If they want to introduce a major new organization, that is something that needs to be worked out ahead of time because I need time to discuss and think about any wide implications it has on the campaign world I constructed. If they want to throw in minor suggestions, that's different.
Being in control of the campaign world and setting the stage is pretty much the main fun part of being DM.
Really, I don't see how some of you people don't get it. I mean, you wouldn't want a DM forcing emotions or actions on players in the middle of the game, right?
PC 1: I attack!
DM: Oh, sorry Mike, but the head cultist looks kind of like the babysitter Rathgar had in his youth who inappropriately touched him. Rathgar loses his action this round while he cowers in the corner and wets himself.
PC 1: WTF?
QuoteYou might instinctively want to slap down this seizure of your narrative prerogative.
And people doubted me when I insisted the Forge had taken over our game.
Holy fuck.
Quote from: Seanchai;362875Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say "distasteful."
I don't find it necessary. That is, gaming works - and works well - without a GM who possess total authority over all aspects of the game.
I believe that if a player would find the game more enjoyable and become more attached to it if he or she could add details, then, by all means, add details.
I enjoy the challenge of GMing in an environment of collaboration.
I believe collaboration makes for a stronger, more interesting game, setting, storyline, et al.
Seanchai
Well the flipside is that I have no problem with conceding almost all authority over the setting to the GM, with the exception of some details over my character, as I most enjoy exploring the imagined world and discovering the details provided by a talented GM. I see no way of avoiding collaboration of some kind in playing RPGs, the question is a matter of degrees. As we all know, there's room for the whole spectrum to enjoy games, but this particular game is in a different part of the spectrum than games that are purposely designed to accommodate this sort of improv, so IMO some discussion before the game starts would be required to define when and how such improv would be appropriate for the particular group in question as what's described in the original example actually disregards rules included in the game to deal with the kind of situation provided. If improv is going to be allowed to trump rules, then what would be the downside of using improvised narrative to dictate the outcome of every challenge, thereby transforming the game into collaborative story-telling rather than a game of DnD?
Quote from: Sigmund;362681I could turn the question around and ask why such thorough ownership of the fictional setting is so distasteful to you.
The short answer is that I like being able to contribute to the fiction this way and I find games where players are allowed this are more fun.
The longer answer is that I think this is an interesting question and a question worth asking. When a bunch of players get together to play and rpg, they're all friends and equals. None of them is more special than any other. One player is selected (or self-selects) to be the GM and given a special authority over the fiction because that serves play, and makes a better game. The other kinds of players get a different level of authority over the fiction for the same reason. I think it's worth it to experiment with the limits of player authority, to try new things and see what works and what doesn't. Any limits to any players' control over the fiction should be accompanied by good reasons for those limits--the limits should be for the purpose of making a better, more enjoyable game. So when CRKRueger says he prefers those limits because it improves his immersion, that's something I can accept. But simply saying, "No, you can't do that because I'm the GM and I say so," is a very unsatisfying answer for me. Going on to punish my character (and by extension punishing me as a player) by associating the character with sheep-fuckers not just unsatisfying, but downright insulting.
QuoteLets leave aside the OOC explanation, which is certainly valid in at least some circumstances wherein said DM might have an in-game reason for not wanting to allow such a group and becoming annoyed that the player is introducing such details without consulting the DM first, although I might go about saying it differently. After all, my reading of raeth's post is that the DM didn't initially object to the detail being introduced, or the existence of the group the player was claiming membership in on behalf of his character. What seemed to jump the shark was making the group so locally prominent and prestigious, possibly circumventing a challenge that the DM had planned for this encounter, or even allowing room for further "benefits" being called upon later on. What makes it ok for the player to introduce such a detail, unbidden, into the campaign world, but not ok for the DM to expand upon that fictional detail. Perhaps the group being out of favor actually plays into the DMs goals for the long-term game.
A GM willing to negotiating with the player about added elements to the fiction is totally cool. Being told that it's important that the group is currently out of favour would be interesting and fun. If I introduced something like that and you said, "Okay they don't exist, make a bluff check." I could go with that, too, and maybe initiate a conversation about it after the game. That sort of contribution is not always welcome, and bringing it in unbidden could be considered rude. But being told okay but they're actually sheep-fuckers is an insult, a complete perversion of player intent. For that I might stop the game and say, Hey, what the fuck?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;362701If you just take it for granted that people favor immersion and exploration of the fictional world, then all your bemused objections melt away.
Why take it for granted?
Why not question and discuss these things? Why not question our assumptions? Isn't that what forums are for?
Quote from: David R;362703I'm surprised at the way how you phrased your question. "Ownership of the fictional setting" seems needlessly adversarial. It hardly describes the dynamic in most groups.
I actually am making an effort not to be antagonistic, and use language that's both neutral and clear. Isn't ownership of the fiction what's going on? Every player in an rpg tries to influence the fiction. The ways they are allowed to do that are limited by the rules and by the custom of each group.
Quote from: Seanchai;362866Of course, these are reductio ad absurdum. Let players add input to the game - which is, by the way, separating from allowing them to re-write elements of the game as is the case with the examples - and they'll add input about their characters and little else.
Seanchai
Great Cthulhu arise! The Stars are Right!!!
Ahem, i agree with Seanchai.
Quote from: Windjammer;362793DM: "The duke seems very angry with you for barging into his meeting."
PC: "Nah, the duke is my friend, I've known him for years, and my character always barges in like that. He's cool with it."
DM: "The king asks you to get the herb Jandiar to complete the cure to the disease. It grows in the distant mounta- "
PC: "Nah, we don't need that, there's another herb called Pullouttamiass that works just as well. It grows in the forest 5 minutes from here."
DM: "The great red dragon pulls back to breathe fire."
PC: "I whip out a carrot and toss it at the dragon. As of 2 seconds ago, red dragons are deathly allergic to carrots and the irritation prevents them from using their breath weapon. Also 1 round later, the dragon dies. "
I don't buy it. Yeah there are players who will be abusive if they're given more authority over the fiction. They're assholes. Don't game with them. There are GMs who get annoyed with players and say, Okay rocks fall you die. They're also assholes. Don't game with them.
Quote from: Aos;362856I'm okay with players adding details- just not in the middle of a play session. I follow the same guide line when it comes to making houserules- if there is something in place I wont change it in the middle of play.
I am also not married to either of these ways of doing things.
I pretty much agree with this, although I would add it depends on the game setting. Some of my campaign worlds have a lot of blank space to fill in and others are well defined.
A couple of other thoughts;
As a DM the world is sort of "my character". There has to be a dividing line somewhere. Should a DM be allowed to decide a PC's actions? I think most players would find that intrusive. I prefer a seperation of church and state. Make the character you want to play, then explore my world.
As far as players making up details on the fly, I like the way Shatterzone does it, with cards expended as a resource to affect the setting or NPC's, etc. You could use a point system just as easy. But again it depends on the setting, I wouldn't want to do this in most games.
Quote from: two_fishes;362891I actually am making an effort not to be antagonistic, and use language that's both neutral and clear. Isn't ownership of the fiction what's going on? Every player in an rpg tries to influence the fiction.
No, they don't. You keep making assumptions like this, and all they prove is that you don't have the slightest clue what goes on in most games.
IME you're lucky if the characters at the table even have a backstory, or even a proper name, let alone all this bullshit about springing setting details on the players in the middle of the goddamn game.
Yeah, I said players. In all this anti-GM rhetoric where's the consideration for the other players, hmm? After all, if gaming's supposed to be "shared fiction", doesn't that imply these whole cloth sudden inventions affect the other players every bit as much as the GM?
Quote from: jgants;362885Being in control of the campaign world and setting the stage is pretty much the main fun part of being DM.
Really, I don't see how some of you people don't get it. I mean, you wouldn't want a DM forcing emotions or actions on players in the middle of the game, right?
PC 1: I attack!
DM: Oh, sorry Mike, but the head cultist looks kind of like the babysitter Rathgar had in his youth who inappropriately touched him. Rathgar loses his action this round while he cowers in the corner and wets himself.
PC 1: WTF?
I need to learn to type faster, hehe. you beat me to it.
I had a DM who would tell me things like "your character feels like you can trust so-and-so". And I would say "you are a bad mind reader, because that's not how he feels at all..."
He got better though. :D
Quote from: J Arcane;362897No, they don't. You keep making assumptions like this, and all they prove is that you don't have the slightest clue what goes on in most games.
Everything said about a fiction is an attempt to influence the fiction. If I say, "My guy runs up to the orc and whacks the shit out of him with my big fucken mace!" I am attempting to influencing the fiction. That is all that means. Don't read too much into it.
Quote from: two_fishes;362891Isn't ownership of the fiction what's going on? Every player in an rpg tries to influence their part of the fiction. The ways they are allowed to do that are limited by the rules and by the custom of each group.
Fixed your typo.
Why are people on the forge side of the tracks always so obsessed with power? Everything is expressed in terms that boil down to power struggles. GM abuse of power is a favourite, ownership suggests, well ownership, which is power over the setting, shared narrative is just a wanky way of saying "i want my bit of power! Waah! No single person should have THE POWER."
Fuck, it's not Greyskull.
Power, power, power.
Most folk tend to play just fine without that power haggling.
Must be a Con thing.
I think he's doing a service, setting all you knuckle-walkers straight.
Drinking before 6 PM again?
Quote from: One Horse Town;362920Drinking before 6 PM again?
Aos was complimenting you on setting the Forgies straight.
I'm just adding to the fiction.
Quote from: Aos;362926I'm just adding to the fiction.
Is body horror a genre?
Quote from: Aos;362926I'm just adding to the fiction.
Of the friction?
Feel the power!
Quote from: Aos;362930Feel the power!
I feel it brother!
Quote from: One Horse Town;362937I feel it brother!
Incest.
Way to lower the tone, Frenchie. :rolleyes:
Quote from: J Arcane;362886And people doubted me when I insisted the Forge had taken over our game.
People doubted? I thought it was common knowledge that some of the designers on 4e liked using theory as a basis, even if they reject some parts of it.
Mike Mearls was originally supposed to help found the 'Hephaestus Forge' with Edwards and another fellow before he was pulled away to "work on a revision of D&D." He's defended theory personally on RPGnet in the past -- back in 2004 I think, and said he and the other designers had talked about it in relation to D&D, even when 3.x was still going strong. Edwards also endorses 4e as a gamist engine, and I haven't heard him speak an ill word of it unlike older editions of D&D.
Not that I mind, since 4e exists in limbo for me, ever attracting and repelling me at the same time, but I can see where it could bug other people.
Quote from: One Horse Town;362940Way to lower the tone, Frenchie. :rolleyes:
Sorry. Aos' spirit got to me for a moment. :D
Quote from: Sigmund;362887If improv is going to be allowed to trump rules, then what would be the downside of using improvised narrative to dictate the outcome of every challenge...
It's not always as much fun.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;362956It's not always as much fun.
Seanchai
Which is why I would not agree to run or even play in a game that included unrestrained improv on the part of the players.
Random answers and comments
Why are Forgies so obsessed with power? - Bad GMing. :D
Thanks AM for proving my point nicely that non-IRPGers just don't get what IRPGers are talking about. :p
My Ron Edwards doesn't bash 4e rant. - Of course he doesn't. He never really understood Immersion to begin with, as far as he was concerned there were elite Narrative players, knuckle-dragging Gamists, and then the rest of us who were fooling ourselves that we were having fun being de-protagonized by the same bad GM's that once touched him in the bad place. Now D&D 4e doesn't even know what Immersion is, so Uncle Ron is a happy camper. :rant:
Ranting and humor aside, I do think there sometimes is some hostility towards those who favor high levels of Immersion in games. People who had bad GM's or people who simply didn't play in a setting where the GM really brought it to life don't really have a frame of reference to discuss how different an Immersive campaign is compared to one concerned more with Narration or Mechanics. For them, AD&D wasn't that great. For Narrative players, bad GM's ruined the experience to the point that they wanted to develop a different paradigm for looking at power relationships in the setting and story. For Tactical players, each successive ruleset has added, refined, or tightened the gameplay up from earlier versions, so of course for them 4e is worlds better then AD&D. Add to that the fact that since IRPGers talk about an experience with games that they did not have, it probably seems to NRPGers and TRPGers that IRPGers consider themselves to be playing on a higher level, only by embracing Immersion are you "truly roleplaying" (and there are lots of people out there who probably do think that, which just makes the situation worse.)
Quote from: Peregrin;362946People doubted? I thought it was common knowledge that some of the designers on 4e liked using theory as a basis, even if they reject some parts of it.
Mike Mearls was originally supposed to help found the 'Hephaestus Forge' with Edwards and another fellow before he was pulled away to "work on a revision of D&D." He's defended theory personally on RPGnet in the past -- back in 2004 I think, and said he and the other designers had talked about it in relation to D&D, even when 3.x was still going strong. Edwards also endorses 4e as a gamist engine, and I haven't heard him speak an ill word of it unlike older editions of D&D.
Not that I mind, since 4e exists in limbo for me, ever attracting and repelling me at the same time, but I can see where it could bug other people.
Mearls was never involved with the Forge. he was involved with the Gaming Outpost (which was a website similar to this one). Other notable people who hung out at the Gaming Outpost: Jared Sorenson, Gareth Michael Skarka (every once in a while) and Gareth Hanrahan (mongoose Traveller amongst other things).
That particular group at the Gaming Outpost was really focused on self publishing free rpgs and stuff.
The forge was founded in the year 2000. It was Ed Healy & Ron Edwards. Ed Healy left that project (and later went into the military, and now he's back), Clinton Nixon stepped in to help renew the domain name after it had been up for a year. But left it sometime in 2006 07 or something.
Mearls was never really involved in the forge. By 2000 he actually had a real job writing for Feng Shui (Elevator to the Underworld, which I found out has a co-author that also hangs out at this very site, who I won't name..) By the time D20 third party hit, he was self publishing and also freelancing a lot. Firey Dragon, Fantasy Flight, Atlas Games, you name it.
You can go back and look at the forge archives and see the things they were talking about all the way back to the beginning. Most of it is still there as far as I can tell.
Quote from: CRKrueger;362966Random answers and comments
Why are Forgies so obsessed with power? - Bad GMing. :D
Thanks AM for proving my point nicely that non-IRPGers just don't get what IRPGers are talking about. :p
Actually I get it just fine, I just think it can be taken to an extreme and that can be off-putting.
Quote from: CRKrueger;362966Ranting and humor aside, I do think there sometimes is some hostility towards those who favor high levels of Immersion in games. People who had bad GM's or people who simply didn't play in a setting where the GM really brought it to life don't really have a frame of reference to discuss how different an Immersive campaign is compared to one concerned more with Narration or Mechanics. For them, AD&D wasn't that great. For Narrative players, bad GM's ruined the experience to the point that they wanted to develop a different paradigm for looking at power relationships in the setting and story. For Tactical players, each successive ruleset has added, refined, or tightened the gameplay up from earlier versions, so of course for them 4e is worlds better then AD&D. Add to that the fact that since IRPGers talk about an experience with games that they did not have, it probably seems to NRPGers and TRPGers that IRPGers consider themselves to be playing on a higher level, only by embracing Immersion are you "truly roleplaying" (and there are lots of people out there who probably do think that, which just makes the situation worse.)
I'm disagreeing here. My own experience tells me that there are people who are obsessed about the perfection of the model of the game rather than interested in the act of actually playing it (which involves social skills, collaboration, compromise, etc), and those people are not worth dealing with. Theyre hung up on bullshit, and 90% of the time they don't play that often anyway. Their needs, wants, and desires can safely be discounted.
Quote from: two_fishes;362889The short answer is that I like being able to contribute to the fiction this way and I find games where players are allowed this are more fun.
The longer answer is that I think this is an interesting question and a question worth asking. When a bunch of players get together to play and rpg, they're all friends and equals. None of them is more special than any other. One player is selected (or self-selects) to be the GM and given a special authority over the fiction because that serves play, and makes a better game. The other kinds of players get a different level of authority over the fiction for the same reason. I think it's worth it to experiment with the limits of player authority, to try new things and see what works and what doesn't. Any limits to any players' control over the fiction should be accompanied by good reasons for those limits--the limits should be for the purpose of making a better, more enjoyable game. So when CRKRueger says he prefers those limits because it improves his immersion, that's something I can accept. But simply saying, "No, you can't do that because I'm the GM and I say so," is a very unsatisfying answer for me. Going on to punish my character (and by extension punishing me as a player) by associating the character with sheep-fuckers not just unsatisfying, but downright insulting.
I agree with you in pretty much everything you say here, and I'd also add that I would not have reacted in the same manner as CRKrueger put forth. However, I am choosing to disregard the specific manner of his hypothetical reaction and will admit that I would have reacted the same in spirit to his example. I would not be supportive of such a contribution in-game unless the group as a whole had discussed and agreed to this sort of in-game break with the rules before play had begun, or more likely before the campaign had even been kicked-off. In counterpoint to your approach to limits I would say that in games I prefer, I would need good reasons for removing the limits on player control over the fiction before I'd agree to play, although I do see nothing inherently wrong with experimenting as you describe. I guess I'm just more cautious about allowing the time I have to game devoted to such experimentation.
QuoteA GM willing to negotiating with the player about added elements to the fiction is totally cool. Being told that it's important that the group is currently out of favour would be interesting and fun. If I introduced something like that and you said, "Okay they don't exist, make a bluff check." I could go with that, too, and maybe initiate a conversation about it after the game. That sort of contribution is not always welcome, and bringing it in unbidden could be considered rude. But being told okay but they're actually sheep-fuckers is an insult, a complete perversion of player intent. For that I might stop the game and say, Hey, what the fuck?
I see nothing wrong with your response here and agree that a more diplomatic solution than "perverting" the player's contribution would most likely be more appropriate and better received.
I still maintain that in the context of the DnD rules this a poor example of how these elements might be experimented with.
What about those of us who enjoy both immersive and nar play? I see pros and cons to each, and I find it fairly easy to "switch modes" during play if need be, just as I could when playing 3e with miniatures. You'd have your IC dialogue and character interactions, and then you'd put on your captain's hat and engage the game tactically once you had an encounter.
Also, didn't Edwards take back some of his hostility towards sim play? I'm pretty sure he wrote an essay in defense of it, and concluded that it was his fault he didn't seem to "get it." Just sayin'.
*edit*
Dunno AM, I never said he was 'involved' per se, but in a recent interview with The Walking Eye podcast, Edwards said that Mearls was one of the original people with him and Healy to push the idea of the Forge before 2000, but that Mearls stepped away before anything moved beyond talking.
Quote from: Peregrin;362974What about those of us who enjoy both immersive and nar play? I see pros and cons to each, and I find it fairly easy to "switch modes" during play if need be, just as I could when playing 3e with miniatures. You'd have your IC dialogue and character interactions, and then you'd put on your captain's hat and engage the game tactically once you had an encounter.
Well, that's exactly what happens in 4th Edition D&D too.
As far as Edwards hostility towards "simulationism", I have no idea. My impression of him (Ron) is that he really cared about one thing and one thing only, and that was marketing his own game. The use of an easily manipulated collective to do the marketing for him was it's own phenomenon.
Quote from: Peregrin;362974Dunno AM, I never said he was 'involved' per se, but in a recent interview with The Walking Eye podcast, Edwards said that Mearls was one of the original people with him and Healy to push the idea of the Forge before 2000, but that Mearls stepped away before anything moved beyond talking.
Well that was because of the huge self-publishing boom that was going on at Gaming Outpost. Mearls was a regular at the Gaming Outpost- he was just one of the regular posters just like you and I are talking right now; he didn't work for an RPG company or publish anything. He had just graduated Dartmouth and was living in NYC. But the vibe was much closer to the Free Rpgs blog than the forge. Back then at GO.. any original RPG design or content was cool, there was no D20 movement yet.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362975Well, that's exactly what happens in 4th Edition D&D too.
Not saying it doesn't, just using 3e as a reference point where immersion didn't seem to be the be-all-end-all before the Forge "got to our game."
QuoteAs far as Edwards hostility towards "simulationism", I have no idea. My impression of him (Ron) is that he really cared about one thing and one thing only, and that was marketing his own game. The use of an easily manipulated collective to do the marketing for him was it's own phenomenon.
He failed pretty miserably then, seeing as most of the younger designers from and associated with that collective are more successful than he is.
Quote from: Peregrin;362978He failed pretty miserably then, seeing as most of the younger designers from and associated with that collective are more successful than he is.
I think so too. And you'll also notice the most successful are the least beholden to his theories.
Quote from: Sigmund;362965Which is why I would not agree to run or even play in a game that included unrestrained improv on the part of the players.
Do you think random events, rules, or traditional GMing styles always lead to fun? If you say no, why haven't you stopped using those?
Seanchai
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362975As far as Edwards hostility towards "simulationism", I have no idea. My impression of him (Ron) is that he really cared about one thing and one thing only, and that was marketing his own game. The use of an easily manipulated collective to do the marketing for him was it's own phenomenon.
Thanks, that's quite an interesting take I hadn't seen before.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362976Well that was because of the huge self-publishing boom that was going on at Gaming Outpost. Mearls was a regular at the Gaming Outpost- he was just one of the regular posters just like you and I are talking right now; he didn't work for an RPG company or publish anything. He had just graduated Dartmouth and was living in NYC. But the vibe was much closer to the Free Rpgs blog than the forge. Back then at GO.. any original RPG design or content was cool, there was no D20 movement yet.
In late summer 2008 Mearls gave an impressively frank and sincere Q&A on his designer bio at a con. Here's what I recall (wish I could link it, it was live, never broadcasted, but got transcripted as these things always get thanks to the internet - I never bookmarked it and google didn't help me). After graduating from Dartmouth he went into e-business and was working his ass off, to the point of utterly depressing him. His disillusionment pretty much coincided with the dot com bubble bursting. Mearls moved back home to live with his mother. He started to write RPG stuff for d20 like crazy. AM already mentioned the companies. We all knew what happened over the next years. As summed up by Erik Mona in 2007,
QuoteI like and respect Mike Mearls. He is a product of the d20 license and the OGL, and was really the first "from out of nowhere" freelancer to arise from the minor leagues, establish a reputation for himself on the internet, and graduate to the lofty RPG R&D department at Wizards of the Coast. It's exactly where he belongs, and Mike would probably have been the first person I'd have contacted were I in charge of redesigning D&D.
I mention the above trivia because
1. Mearls' occupation with dot com explains his temporary leave from things related to RPG around 2000, and may explain what is referenced as Edwards saying 'Mearls left before things were taking off'.
2. I'm personally impressed by people who are that frank about the things they went through to get where they are.
Quote from: Windjammer;3630132. I'm personally impressed by people who are that frank about the things they went through to get where they are.
The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.
Quote from: Aos;363014The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.
Let's have them, then!
PS. Here's another Mearls interview (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2008/08/19/show044-interview-with-mike-mearls/) where he relates the Gaming Open experience ca. 1998. It's also one of the best ever interviews on 4E's design. Just 2 minutes in I remembered listening to this when it came out in 2008. Wow. Really great moments.
Quote from: Aos;363014The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.
So that's why he's afraid of zucchini!
Seanchai
Quote from: two_fishes;362891I actually am making an effort not to be antagonistic, and use language that's both neutral and clear. Isn't ownership of the fiction what's going on? Every player in an rpg tries to influence the fiction. The ways they are allowed to do that are limited by the rules and by the custom of each group.
I didn't say you were being antagonistic, I said your description of the trad group dynamic assumed a kind of "narrative struggle" between the players and the GM. There's a big difference, between a player influencing the narrative through
roleplaying her character and influencing it as a
player. It's disingenuous to claim that there's really no difference between the two.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Aos;363014The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.
You wrong Aos. Take another look at
Forward to Adventure !
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362970Actually I get it just fine, I just think it can be taken to an extreme and that can be off-putting.
True enough.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362970I'm disagreeing here. My own experience tells me that there are people who are obsessed about the perfection of the model of the game rather than interested in the act of actually playing it (which involves social skills, collaboration, compromise, etc), and those people are not worth dealing with. Theyre hung up on bullshit, and 90% of the time they don't play that often anyway. Their needs, wants, and desires can safely be discounted.
Well, yeah, anytime you get into theorycrafting, you end up dealing with bitter non-gamers, and I think most active gamers have a narrower sweet spot of gaming in theory then they actually enjoy in practice around the table. There's also the difference between GMing and playing. I'd play a FATE or 4e game in a heartbeat and give the GM a shot, but thinking about running a long-term campaign with those systems makes my brain bleed. I guess when it comes to suspension of disbelief I hold myself as GM to a higher standard then I hold other GMs when I'm a player, so as a GM I avoid games that kind of go out of their way to make extra work for me on the Immersion front.
Approaching the gates the PC's are challenged by the sentinels standing guard:
Ed: I drop my pants and shake my cock at them saying, "Do you recognize this? It identifies me as one of the Uncut Brigade, do you not know of us?"
DM: "Don't think so, we don't get a lot of visitors with these parts."
Ed: "We've been protecting these parts for years from the unnessary cutting hoards that roam these lands."
DM: "Wait a minute aren't you the guys that were disbanded by the king for ritual acts of fornication with farm animals?"
Ed: "Aye, that is but an untruth that brought our group low."
DM: "So you are not a bunch of sheep fuckers?"
Ed: "Nay, we are sheep fuckers, but there certainly is no ritual part to it."
well someone is a lying Mearls, Edwards, or board members I'm not sure but the things that are being said don't line up with what Edwards has said recently?
Quote from: Seanchai;362984Do you think random events, rules, or traditional GMing styles always lead to fun? If you say no, why haven't you stopped using those?
Seanchai
Yes. For me anyway. YMMV
Quote from: David R;363020I didn't say you were being antagonistic, I said your description of the trad group dynamic assumed a kind of "narrative struggle" between the players and the GM. There's a big difference, between a player influencing the narrative through roleplaying her character and influencing it as a player. It's disingenuous to claim that there's really no difference between the two.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I don't mean for this division of control over the fiction to sound as adversarial as you seem to have inferred. Obviously in the vast majority of cases the ownership of the fiction (or division of control over; or jurisdiction over; or however you want to put it) is decided on by the games rules and by group custom before the game even begins, and then played within those divisions. Limiting player influence to "the words and attempted actions of my character" is a pretty common division during gameplay, but I don't think that it has to be an assumed given that it's the default style.
I suppose you could say that the goal of immersive play (so far as i understand it) is to correlate player intent to influence the fictional world as closely as possibly with the character's intent to influence the fictional world. Does that sound right?
I do think that all rpgs do contain some level of struggle for control of the fiction, though. Any time a player has to roll the dice, he is trying to influence the fiction in some way, with a chance that he might fail.
The posts I've responded to have been where the posters' imagined response to the example from the DMG2 has been to either block the player's input or to pervert it. To me that reads like the GM in question sees player control over the fiction beyond the strict limits of "the words and attempted actions of my character" to be something that they need to stop, or even attack and punish. So I want to know why, for reasons I've already posted.
I also think it's interesting that a lot of the response seems to be that it's okay for players to create elements of the game fiction outside of immediate gameplay--before or after the game itself, but not during gameplay. That does make me scratch my head a little. If a player can be trusted to bring stuff in outside of the game, then why not while in the game?
Quote from: two_fishes;363197I also think it's interesting that a lot of the response seems to be that it's okay for players to create elements of the game fiction outside of immediate gameplay--before or after the game itself, but not during gameplay. That does make me scratch my head a little. If a player can be trusted to bring stuff in outside of the game, then why not while in the game?
Speaking for myself, it's because the proposed additions can then be discussed in the context of what the GM has included, has to include later, and what kind of conflicts, if any, the player's proposed additions might cause. It's much easier to hammer out these issues outside of the regular game session, both because the player and GM can work out the details in a more relaxed manner, and because it won't then eat into the game time of all the other players. In the games I've played in and usually prefer, player influence over the fictional world at large is minimal by design, we like to explore and discover the world our GMs have put together for us. Therefore, the player input is the exception rather than the rule. I imagine if we were to play a game where the player input is more of an established part of the game it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue, although I'm skeptical about whether I would enjoy such a game.
Quote from: Sigmund;363211Speaking for myself, it's because the proposed additions can then be discussed in the context of what the GM has included, has to include later, and what kind of conflicts, if any, the player's proposed additions might cause. It's much easier to hammer out these issues outside of the regular game session, both because the player and GM can work out the details in a more relaxed manner, and because it won't then eat into the game time of all the other players.
Yep. Which is pretty much what I already said, too.
Really, the concept is not that hard to get.
Quote from: jgants;363218Yep. Which is pretty much what I already said, too.
Really, the concept is not that hard to get.
I know, right.
Quote from: two_fishes;363197Limiting player influence to "the words and attempted actions of my character" is a pretty common division during gameplay, but I don't think that it has to be an assumed given that it's the default style.
Actually, you should assume it. Why ? Because you are participating in a discussion with gamers who adhere to a specific tradition. Now, I'm not so much for questioning tradition but more like exploring new ways of doing things.
QuoteI suppose you could say that the goal of immersive play (so far as i understand it) is to correlate player intent to influence the fictional world as closely as possibly with the character's intent to influence the fictional world. Does that sound right?
Maybe, I don't really know much about immersion, but "a player influencing the game through her character" does not really have to mean, immersion.
QuoteI do think that all rpgs do contain some level of struggle for control of the fiction, though. Any time a player has to roll the dice, he is trying to influence the fiction in some way, with a chance that he might fail.
See, this is where I think you (because you seem like a smart guy) are being a tad disingenuous. Rolling dice is not "influencing the fiction", it's "participating" in the action. Influencing the fiction, to me, is a matter on intent. Furthermore, there is no struggle because both the GM and the player are bound by the resuts of the dice. None of them have control over the "fiction".
QuoteThe posts I've responded to have been where the posters' imagined response to the example from the DMG2 has been to either block the player's input or to pervert it. To me that reads like the GM in question sees player control over the fiction beyond the strict limits of "the words and attempted actions of my character" to be something that they need to stop, or even attack and punish. So I want to know why, for reasons I've already posted.
And that's the point. It's like you said, in trad play, there's a clearly defined division of how the player interacts with the fiction. Maybe the reason why some folks have trouble with the
DMG2 example, is that it departs from tradition.
QuoteI also think it's interesting that a lot of the response seems to be that it's okay for players to create elements of the game fiction outside of immediate gameplay--before or after the game itself, but not during gameplay. That does make me scratch my head a little. If a player can be trusted to bring stuff in outside of the game, then why not while in the game?
I've rambled on long enough. Sigmund (and jgants) answered this pretty well.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: two_fishes;363197I suppose you could say that the goal of immersive play (so far as i understand it) is to correlate player intent to influence the fictional world as closely as possibly with the character's intent to influence the fictional world. Does that sound right?
Yes, but Damn dude, this isn't a PhD review. It's Roleplaying 101. :)
Take a character. Imagine that character is a living breathing person in the setting you're playing in. Then pretend you're that person, acting as if you were them
instead of yourself.
Quote from: CRKrueger;363276Yes, but Damn dude, this isn't a PhD review. It's Roleplaying 101. :)
Take a character. Imagine that character is a living breathing person in the setting you're playing in. Then pretend you're that person, acting as if you were them instead of yourself.
Rampant ignorance of how normal people actually play games is a pretty common Forge handicap.
Quote from: J Arcane;363297Rampant ignorance of how normal people actually play games is a pretty common Forge handicap.
If Forgite was a character archetype, it'd be a mandatory flaw for them; along with "pretentious" and "pseudo-intellectual".
RPGPundit
Quote from: two_fishes;363197Limiting player influence to "the words and attempted actions of my character" is a pretty common division during gameplay, but I don't think that it has to be an assumed given that it's the default style.
It is the default style. Your intention to question the validity of the premise should not cause you to negate the existence of the premise in the first place. That's the sort of logical breakdown that leads theories into lala land.
two_fishes:
Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if you could tell me how old you are, when you started playing RPGs, what got you into gaming, etc? I get the idea that you and I are coming from quite different starting points as far as gaming is concerned, I'd just like to understand your viewpoint better. Not looking for flamebait, just want to have an interesting conversation.
I'm 34. I got into Mentzer and Cyclopedia era D&D in junior high and then AD&D when 2nd ed came out--late 80's or so. I lived in a small town in Alberta and finding players was difficult. I collected & read supplements more than I played. When I did get to play it was always unsatisfying--often typified by long stretches of boredom punctuated with brief spurts of fun. But I remained fascinated. Magic and CCG were born just as I was moving to a city for college and that ate up my gaming. Role-playing was sporadic. I got back into rpgs around 2003 or 2004 in Toronto and I've been playing regularly since then. I had stumbled across the Forge online and found a group of people in the city trying out a lot of games that came out of there. We played a lot of different games--one-shots and short runs, but also some lengthy runs of Burning Wheel/Empires and Heroquest. Its been great. I also played in a regular D&D 3rd campaign for a couple years--fun overall, but less satisfying and often frustrating. When D&D 4th came out, I got in a regular game of that, too, for a little over a year till I moved again. The GM for that game documented it over here. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/233317-sandboxing-nentir-vale-emergent-features-keep-shadowfell.html)
Quote from: David R;363275See, this is where I think you (because you seem like a smart guy) are being a tad disingenuous. Rolling dice is not "influencing the fiction", it's "participating" in the action. Influencing the fiction, to me, is a matter on intent. Furthermore, there is no struggle because both the GM and the player are bound by the resuts of the dice. None of them have control over the "fiction".
I'm not sure what you mean by a matter of intent. I think this may just be semantics. What's the difference between "influencing the fiction" and "participating in the action." If I say, "My guy tries to hit that orc with his axe," I'm stating a change to the imaginary world (my guy is doing something in it) and trying to affect it in a way that bumps against a place where the rules place a limit on what I'm allowed to say. I roll the dice to see if I am allowed to influence the fiction in the way that I want. If that's not a struggle it's... what? a tension? a risk?
Quote from: two_fishes;363447I'm not sure what you mean by a matter of intent. I think this may just be semantics. What's the difference between "influencing the fiction" and "participating in the action." If I say, "My guy tries to hit that orc with his axe," I'm stating a change to the imaginary world (my guy is doing something in it) and trying to affect it in a way that bumps against a place where the rules place a limit on what I'm allowed to say. I roll the dice to see if I am allowed to influence the fiction in the way that I want. If that's not a struggle it's... what? a tension? a risk?
two_fishes, do you see the difference between "
my guy tries to hit that orc with an axe" and "
my guy uses this turn to narrate the outcome of this scene". Now, if you can't see, the difference, then there's really no point in carryng on this conversation. When I say "intent", I mean that a player wants to contribute to the the development of the "story" not as a character but as a player. Players who roll dice during the course of the game do so as part of the "game" and not as influencing the fiction. There's no intent on the part of the player to influence the story beyond seeing where the dice takes the action.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: two_fishes;363447If I say, "My guy tries to hit that orc with his axe," I'm stating a change to the imaginary world (my guy is doing something in it) and trying to affect it in a way that bumps against a place where the rules place a limit on what I'm allowed to say. I roll the dice to see if I am allowed to influence the fiction in the way that I want. If that's not a struggle it's... what? a tension? a risk?
Part of the disconnect, at least for me is that in 30+ years of gaming, I don't think I've ever had a player who thought of our games as "fiction." I tend to run sandbox campaigns. I don't have a story to tell nor do the players. Instead they just do things in the world.
Sure, in hindsight, their actions in the world may create a story they can later tell, but no one is concerned with controlling that story -- or even whether what they do will make a good story -- while the characters are doing it. It's something like the way real people act in real life. They just do what they are doing and aren't concerned whether what they are doing would be a good story.
Quote from: RandallS;363455It's something like the way real people act in real life. They just do what they are doing and aren't concerned whether what they are doing would be a good story.
Unless they're pretentious, arty-farty twats.
Quote from: David R;363454two_fishes, do you see the difference between "my guy tries to hit that orc with an axe" and "my guy uses this turn to narrate the outcome of this scene". Now, if you can't see, the difference, then there's really no point in carryng on this conversation.
I find the second half of that comparison nonsensical. A fictional character doesn't narrate anything. But I do see
"my guy uses his axe to gut the orc" as shorthand for and fundamentally identical to
I narrate an outcome for this scene by describing the actions of my guy.
QuoteWhen I say "intent", I mean that a player wants to contribute to the the development of the "story" not as a character but as a player. Players who roll dice during the course of the game do so as part of the "game" and not as influencing the fiction. There's no intent on the part of the player to influence the story beyond seeing where the dice takes the action.
Maybe it's the word
fiction that's causing a misunderstanding, with its connotations of story. I'm trying to use it to say players try to control pieces of what happens in the made-up stuff that all members of the group are collaboratively creating. Rules and dice limit what they are allowed to say. Any time a player describes anything in the made-up stuff, there's intent to change the made-up stuff. Participating in the game
is influencing the fiction.
I mean, I think I get what you're trying to point out to me--that there's a difference between someone describing the actions of a character with the intent of shaping an unfolding story, and someone who describes the actions of a character with the intent of having an experience by proxy. We seem to have gotten hung up on a misunderstanding caused poor word choice on my part.
Quote from: two_fishes;363458I find the second half of that comparison nonsensical. A fictional character doesn't narrate anything. But I do see "my guy uses his axe to gut the orc" as shorthand for and fundamentally identical to I narrate an outcome for this scene by describing the actions of my guy.
My bad. I meant to say,
"I narrate the outcome of this scene". I suspected that you would see them as fundamentaly the same. They are not. I believe the reason why you see them as the same, is because, Forge games/theory has a way of deconstructing/conflating various game experiences and concepts until they are essentially the same, thereby making it easier to fit into the desired slots.
QuoteMaybe it's the word fiction that's causing a misunderstanding, with its connotations of story. I'm trying to use it to say players try to control pieces of what happens in the made-up stuff that all members of the group are collaboratively creating. Rules and dice limit what they are allowed to say. Any time a player describes anything in the made-up stuff, there's intent to change the made-up stuff. Participating in the game is influencing the fiction.
Right. But there's a difference (which apparently you don't see) between
creating and
participating. I'm not arguing that players don't influence the "story". What I'm saying is that there's a very real difference between players wanting to create stories (and rules supporting this kind of play) and players wanting to participate in a fictional setting. In the latter, players don't have a "story" they want to tell. Any influence they have on the fiction is a byproduct of their particpation in a game.
QuoteI mean, I think I get what you're trying to point out to me--that there's a difference between someone describing the actions of a character with the intent of shaping an unfolding story, and someone who describes the actions of a character with the intent of having an experience by proxy. We seem to have gotten hung up on a misunderstanding caused poor word choice on my part.
There is no misunderstanding. It's just two extremely different approaches to gaming. Much as you would like them to be the same, they aren't, two_fishes. I'm not saying that if your goal is to create a "story", you are not playing an rpg. I'm saying that if you think, that the goal of an rpg is to create a story, you're wrong. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: RandallS;363455Part of the disconnect, at least for me is that in 30+ years of gaming, I don't think I've ever had a player who thought of our games as "fiction." I tend to run sandbox campaigns. I don't have a story to tell nor do the players. Instead they just do things in the world.
And in my 8+ years of gaming (really, we're counting years now?), I've seen plenty of new entrants in the hobby who do believe story is a part of it, people who've never encountered the Forge, or theory, and some who even don't know who White-Wolf is, because they associate RPGs with the fantasy fiction that they love. It's a cultural disconnect that goes way back to Dragonlance (playing specific scenarios again and again to achieve the desired dramatic effects for a "story", and "making sense" -- attaching real dramatic meaning -- to the in-game events) and Forgotten Realms (Greenwood has said his sessions often looked more like improv theater sessions than a "real" AD&D game), between the people who created RPGs ("What if we play individual soldiers on the battlefield...we could have them eventually gain their own empires and expand their realms in a sandbox world!") to people who came into the hobby en masse during its peak ("I love Lord of the Rings, this game looks awesome! This should be like the books!").
Hell, you could say some aspects of it even go back to Arneson, who seemed to care more about the thespy aspects than the rules or simulating a world. He also apparently had quite a few mechanics that would be considered "weird" by OSR types (not being able to get the full benefit of your XP unless you acted upon your obsessions, etc.).
It's not a wonder that you'd have a split between those who care about story and those who care about the game and/or world simulation aspects when you've got two different groups of people (or more) playing the same kind of games. FWIW, though, most "story-games" focus on creating stories through play, not playing out pre-designed plots like White-Wolf games tended to focus on.
Quote from: two_fishes;362890Why take it for granted? Why not question and discuss these things? Why not question our assumptions?
Because they tell you. People have been trying to push various types of "shared narrative control" for a long time. It's not like the ideas are unfamiliar, especially on this forum. If someone tells you they don't care for that stuff, it's not because of some unthinking traditionalism purely with regard to form. They actually have a reason, which 99% of the time is exactly as I say, because they want to pretend to be an elf, not tell a story about an elf.
QuoteIsn't that what forums are for?
No, frankly, they're to have interesting discussions, and I've never had an interesting discussion with a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door or any other type of evangelist.
Quote from: RandallS;363455Part of the disconnect, at least for me is that in 30+ years of gaming, I don't think I've ever had a player who thought of our games as "fiction."
This. For most people I know, including myself, role-playing depicts actual events as they occur, not "fiction". Or in other words "[T]hey want to pretend to be an elf, not tell a story about an elf," to quote Elliot.
Quote from: Benoist;363477This. For most people I know, including myself, role-playing depicts actual events as they occur, not "fiction". Or in other words "[T]hey want to pretend to be an elf, not tell a story about an elf," to quote Elliot.
I really wouldn't consider filling in minor details to be telling a story about an elf. Nor do I know many indie games that allow you the level of control to "tell a story." As I said, the story is usually created through play, just like a "story" could be created through play with a trad game. The difference is the focus of the mechanics in "story-games" is pushing the events toward more interesting conflicts rather than just arbitrarily moving about in the world. It's a matter of style, not a matter of stance, and you can do the same sort of thing with a trad game, the difference is that one system supports it mechanically and the other doesn't. Nor is it any more about "telling" story than a sandbox D&D campaign. It's about the creation, not the exposition.
I'm far from a Forgite, and I love me some trad games, especially sandboxxy things, but I think some of the things people here consider negative aspects of these "weird" play-styles are a bit overstated.
Quote from: David R;363461My bad. I meant to say, "I narrate the outcome of this scene". I suspected that you would see them as fundamentaly the same. They are not. I believe the reason why you see them as the same, is because, Forge games/theory has a way of deconstructing/conflating various game experiences and concepts until they are essentially the same, thereby making it easier to fit into the desired slots.
Right. But there's a difference (which apparently you don't see) between creating and participating. I'm not arguing that players don't influence the "story". What I'm saying is that there's a very real difference between players wanting to create stories (and rules supporting this kind of play) and players wanting to participate in a fictional setting. In the latter, players don't have a "story" they want to tell. Any influence they have on the fiction is a byproduct of their particpation in a game.
There is no misunderstanding. It's just two extremely different approaches to gaming. Much as you would like them to be the same, they aren't, two_fishes. I'm not saying that if your goal is to create a "story", you are not playing an rpg. I'm saying that if you think, that the goal of an rpg is to create a story, you're wrong. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.
I do get that. I do understand that... well what I said
Quote from: two_fishes;363458there's a difference between someone describing the actions of a character with the intent of shaping an unfolding story, and someone who describes the actions of a character with the intent of having an experience by proxy.
But regardless of the intent of the player--and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up. Who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.
And I get that depending on your reason for playing you're going to deal with who gets describe what and when in different ways.
When I asked a poster why they felt their ownership of the fiction was so important (which I think is what sparked this tangent), I meant just that they seemed to jealously cling to a certain way of deciding who gets to say what and when without giving a good reason for it. Most of the people I responded to have since given pretty good reasons for why they're invested in the way they play, and for the most part I haven't pursued it any further because I get it. Or at least I think I get it. Or, in any case, I don't have any follow-up questions to ask.
But I don't know. Maybe I am missing something.
QuoteWhy take it for granted? Why not question and discuss these things? Why not question our assumptions? Isn't that what forums are for?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363476No, frankly, they're to have interesting discussions
Am I speaking moon speak or something? figuring out what you take for granted, what your assumptions are, why you hold them, what other people think, what their assumptions are, why they think the way they think--that's exactly what interesting discussion is to me. Otherwise what are we doing? Just rearranging our prejudices, I guess.
Quote from: two_fishes;363481But regardless of the intent of the player--and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up.
Intent is important. It's why I assume you like certain play experiences over others. Reducing what goes on around the game table to "people just making stuff up" is the kind of dodgy thinking that get's ForgeFolk into trouble. We are not just talking about Role Playing, we are discussing Role Playing
Games.
QuoteWho gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.
Agreed.
QuoteWhen I asked a poster why they felt their ownership of the fiction was so important (which I think is what sparked this tangent), I meant just that they seemed to jealously cling to a certain way of deciding who gets to say what and when without giving a good reason for it.
Above you said that "
who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group". So, you understand this, what the hell more is there to discuss? And why add the mischievous "jealously cling" in your reply ?
QuoteBut I don't know. Maybe I am missing something.
Must...not..take..easy...counterattack....
Regards,
David R
Quote from: two_fishes;363481But regardless of the intent of the player--and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up. Who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.
*snip*
But I don't know. Maybe I am missing something.
Yes. You are. Suspension of disbelief. You've lost your ability to step out of the meta for one bloody minute, and actually imagine yourself in a place, instead of simply manipulating a story.
That's what immersion is. Hell, that's what "playing pretend" is. I'm not thinking about it as "describing imagined events", I'm imagining myself in the moment and in the mind of the character, and simply reacting.
You're missing something, because like the rest of the Forge, and like you so demonstrated in that other thread with the movie analogies, you're too far gone to actually be there anymore. You're playing at being Syd Fields, while the rest of us are playing at being young Tolkien.
Quote from: David R;363486Must...not..take..easy...counterattack....
don't worry, someone's bound to jump on it. but really, i feel vaguely frustrated, like there might be something here, something you're trying to say that i'm simply unable to see.
Quote from: David R;363486Intent is important.
That's it, to me. There's a difference in terms of make-believe.
There's a difference between imagining the events in-game actually occuring in your mind's eye, OR thinking "hey, I am imagining events as they occur right now!", which in fact confirms to me that you are in fact not imagining at that precise moment but focus on this consideration instead.
Edit - what J called Suspension of Disbelief just above.
Quote from: two_fishes;363489don't worry, someone's bound to jump on it. but really, i feel vaguely frustrated, like there might be something here, something you're trying to say that i'm simply unable to see.
What do you like about role playing games ? I'm not asking about the social aspects. Tell me what you like about playing. If you don't mind.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: J Arcane;363487Yes. You are. Suspension of disbelief. You've lost your ability to step out of the meta for one bloody minute, and actually imagine yourself in a place, instead of simply manipulating a story.
That's what immersion is. Hell, that's what "playing pretend" is. I'm not thinking about it as "describing imagined events", I'm imagining myself in the moment and in the mind of the character, and simply reacting.
You're missing something, because like the rest of the Forge, and like you so demonstrated in that other thread with the movie analogies, you're too far gone to actually be there anymore. You're playing at being Syd Fields, while the rest of us are playing at being young Tolkien.
well I'm enjoying my gaming immensely, so i guess i'm okay with that.
p.s. lord of the rings is long and boring.
EDIT: it has too much bloviating.
Quote from: David R;363491What do you like about role playing games ? I'm not asking about the social aspects. Tell me what you like about playing. If you don't mind.
Regards,
David R
Oh I'm totally a story guy, I'll cop to that--driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts and seeing how they fall out. And I like finding character while in play. You start with a sketch of a personality, run with it, build on it, and then something found in play strikes right to the heart of the character, profoundly changes them or drives home what's really important to them.
Quote from: two_fishes;363492p.s. lord of the rings is long and boring.
Not if you drink every time any hobbit cries, twice every time Frodo in particular cries and three times for Sam. Also, it helps to do a line of coke every time Gandalf withholds important information from his friends.
Obviously, you've been doing it wrong.Drunk and coked up is the default way to enjoy LoTR.
Quote from: two_fishes;363482Am I speaking moon speak or something? figuring out what you take for granted, what your assumptions are, why you hold them, what other people think, what their assumptions are, why they think the way they think--that's exactly what interesting discussion is to me.
It's been done. People told you, you're ignoring them. Now you're just bloviating and playing martyr.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363505It's been done. People told you, you're ignoring them. Now you're just bloviating and playing martyr.
bloviating? really? that's your idea of a criticism? outdated 19th century slang? what planet are you from?
Still ignoring the issue, I see.
Quote from: Peregrin;363479I really wouldn't consider filling in minor details to be telling a story about an elf.
True. The point of this discussion, though, is that we aren't filling in minor details. We're bypassing elements of the setting by taking a "whatever" approach to dealing with a challenge. This approach, by the way, is characteristic of many Forge games which substitute mechanics and conflict resolution for actually engaging the setting. The integrity of the setting, suspension of disbelief, character-immersion--they're all subordinated to "say yes or roll the dice". I.e., it doesn't matter how the player suggests that his character will do something; only the announced goal really matters, and the GM is strongly urged to accept the player's narration, however lame it might be.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363514True. The point of this discussion, though, is that we aren't filling in minor details. We're bypassing elements of the setting by taking a "whatever" approach to dealing with a challenge. This approach, by the way, is characteristic of many Forge games which substitute mechanics and conflict resolution for actually engaging the setting. The integrity of the setting, suspension of disbelief, character-immersion--they're all subordinated to "say yes or roll the dice". I.e., it doesn't matter how the player suggests that his character will do something; only the announced goal really matters, and the GM is strongly urged to accept the player's narration, however lame it might be.
Depends on the game. In Dogs, yeah, there's that roundtable approach. In Burning Wheel, the GM dictates and narrates the consequences. Most games I'm aware of limit player ability to narrate aspects of the world or let a die-roll dictate it.
As far as immersion, I think most games follow a change in stance dependent upon what part of the game you're engaged in. Sometimes you unconsciously switch, other times consciously, based on the need/want to either engage with the mechanics or with the situation in-character.
I don't think "immersion", however a particular player defines it, and more "meta" concepts are always at odds, I think they just occupy different instances during play, with one or the other taking precedence in certain styles of play. There's definitely a "sweet-spot", but I think that's highly dependent upon personal preferences. My experience with most gamers IRL is that there are just as many people who ignore immersion in favor of the metagame as there are who try to get really into it, even among people who aren't aware of theory, the Forge, whatever.
As far as intent and task are concerned, I think that happens in every game. Sure, your character succeeded in their lock-pick skill, but exactly how did they disable the trap? If your aim is for full player-to-character immersion with absolutely nothing in the way, you'd go back to OD&D, no skills, and you'd have players describe exactly what they're doing and the GM would determine the outcome. Again, I have no problem with that style of play, and I enjoy it, but how many games are actually like that, even those we consider traditional. But the fact that there are people who dislike 3.x because they feel skill-checks pull them out of the game, make it about the "metagame", whatever, indicates to me this isn't just an issue of Forge design vs. what people here call "traditional" design, but just different people's opinions on where game and imagination should intersect.
As far as shared narration...when I used to play pretend as a kid, it was more collaborative, and it didn't make it any less engaging, so I'm not really sure. I love immersion, but I don't necessarily think using my own imagination to fill in gaps is any less immersive, it depends how I feel going into it. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to pretend I was an army grunt on the beaches of Normandy as a kid and "immerse" myself in it, since I was dictating what was going on in my own mind's eye. Was that any less "playing pretend" than if I were to have had someone else telling me what I see and here rather than dreaming it up myself?
I completely understand where you guys are coming from, though, since I've been there myself, and it's my preferred style of play, but a lot of this talk is about something that you feel and can't measure at all, so it's really almost pointless. If someone hasn't really experienced immersive play, they won't understand, just like those who don't get "story" focused play won't ever understand it, because it's all based on what we
feel is the most important part of play and what makes it fun and exciting for
us.
I understand what you're saying, Peregrin, I really do. Skills as abstraction, yes. We could get into it in more detail, but for purposes of this discussion, we can leave it at "sweet spot". The main issue in this thread is the examples quoted, and those are taking us far out of minor setting elements.
When I hear minor setting elements I think of stuff like the GM describing a warehouse and the player assuming there's a crowbar available...or if not a crowbar, then something else that can improvise as a weapon or a lever. It follows very naturally from the setting and I think most GMs would at least allow a percentage chance of scrounging something unless they had a very good setting-based reason for asserting that the place is utterly bare. The alternative for the GM would be to annotate every location in excruciating detail.
But the critiques of the examples here (at least the first one) have pretty clearly shown how the player's suggested improv has broad implications for the established setting, potentially undermining elements that the GM has in fact determined.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363520But the critiques of the examples here (at least the first one) have pretty clearly shown how the player's suggested improv has broad implications for the established setting, potentially undermining elements that the GM has in fact determined.
Then couldn't the GM just handle it the way they would any other meta-aspect (a rules debate, dictating out-of-game procedures, etc.). Sure, you'd get pulled out of game for a minute, but then once all is said and done, you could then progress back into an immersive mode, just like you would after finishing up a big tactical minis fight or something. Determine the best course of action through discussion, then proceed back into RP.
Yes. Somehow I don't think that is what's being suggested here, in the quoted examples. It seems more like the GM is being encouraged to incorporate anything the player improvises. Take the most extreme critic of the examples actually under discussion, and ask them if they'd automatically shoot down any & all player attempts to improvise. I doubt you'd find one who would--who wouldn't in at least some circumstances roll dice or say "yes" to a player's request to fill in some detail. (The ones who wouldn't are most likely GMs who rigidly plot ahead or who feel a need to guide plot.)
But the way things usually go in these discussions is then to say, "Well, if you can let a player improvise a crowbar then why not a knightly order?" And that's nonsense; the person explained why (it harms immersion) and no amount of slippery-slope or salami-slicing rhetoric is going to overcome that.
two_fishes you ARE speaking moon:
"fiction".
Fiction is a bullshit/ideology term in gaming. It is as if somebody said "surplus value" in a debate on economy.
All the more, your moon speak shows you actually stand behind the banner of "fiction". Which is why you and your games suck. q. e. d.
"Fiction" works fine for me, but only in the narrow technical sense that we as observer-analysts distinguish the game from "reality". Not at as a mealy-mouthed way of claiming that all rping is "collaborative storytelling".
Quote from: Peregrin;363479"... pushing the events toward more interesting conflicts..."
The problem with what you're saying, from my POV, is that this right here is what sounds uninteresting to me. I enjoy events that unfold through just playing the game. I don't want to "push" in any way to make "more interesting conflicts", if indeed the conflicts would be more interesting, about which I'm highly skeptical.
Quote from: two_fishes;363495Oh I'm totally a story guy, I'll cop to that--driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts and seeing how they fall out. And I like finding character while in play. You start with a sketch of a personality, run with it, build on it, and then something found in play strikes right to the heart of the character, profoundly changes them or drives home what's really important to them.
I hate to say it, but what you posted here sounds really pretentious to me. However, I am curious, so I'll ask. How, exactly, do you arrive at the point where you're "driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts"? The reason I ask is because even in regular 2e and 3e games I've found my character "driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts" as well, but I still somehow get the distinct impression that what you're talking about is different from what I have experienced. Also, I'm curious as to what you "found in play" that could affect a figment of your imagination so strongly as to make "profound changes" or even discover "what's really important to them" when "they" don't really exist outside of your own mind. What is it about these things that make them important and enjoyable to you? I'm honestly curious. If need be perhaps PMs or a separate thread would be more appropriate, although it's still tangential at least so I'll let you decide, if you choose to respond at all.
Quote from: Peregrin;363521Then couldn't the GM just handle it the way they would any other meta-aspect (a rules debate, dictating out-of-game procedures, etc.). Sure, you'd get pulled out of game for a minute, but then once all is said and done, you could then progress back into an immersive mode, just like you would after finishing up a big tactical minis fight or something. Determine the best course of action through discussion, then proceed back into RP.
They could, and in actuality probably would, but the point is that this is an example used in an official rulebook to illustrate a concept, and in the opinion of many here, including myself, does a very poor job of it.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363534"Fiction" works fine for me, but only in the narrow technical sense that we as observer-analysts distinguish the game from "reality". Not at as a mealy-mouthed way of claiming that all rping is "collaborative storytelling".
Which of course, is exactly what it is.
Quote from: J Arcane;363563Which of course, is exactly what it is.
Yup, totally. It's not the word itself that's bothersome. It's the meaning ascribed to it.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363514We're bypassing elements of the setting by taking a "whatever" approach to dealing with a challenge.
I disagree. Adding a detail to a setting isn't bypassing it. Nor is it changing it per se.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363514This approach, by the way, is characteristic of many Forge games which substitute mechanics and conflict resolution for actually engaging the setting.
Creating elements of the setting isn't engaging it?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363529It seems more like the GM is being encouraged to incorporate anything the player improvises.
Even if the GM were required by federal law to incorporate every crumb that fell from the players' lips, he or she still could say, "That would impact some behind the scenes stuff. Can we do something else?"
Seanchai
Quote from: Sigmund;363559The problem with what you're saying, from my POV, is that this right here is what sounds uninteresting to me. I enjoy events that unfold through just playing the game. I don't want to "push" in any way to make "more interesting conflicts", if indeed the conflicts would be more interesting, about which I'm highly skeptical.
Yeah, that's cool, and I get that. Like I said, immersion-focused play is a play-style I enjoy, and one I often aim for. It's not the only one that I enjoy, though.
FWIW, I agree with others here that the DMG2 does a poor job of explaining how you should incorporate player ideas. Not enough stress on GM/group critique in order to avoid unnecessarily pulling other people out of the game-world.
I just realized that two_fishes is NOT Halfjack. Sorry, two_fishes, than I don´t know whether your games suck. but you do, for sure.
Quote from: Settembrini;363637I just realized that two_fishes is NOT Halfjack. Sorry, two_fishes, than I don´t know whether your games suck. but you do, for sure.
don't worry about it. your obvious idiocy dulls the sting of your words.
This thread is beginning to remind me of the chicken fights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpoki4wBwtA) from Family Guy. It just keeps going.
Quote from: Peregrin;363644This thread is beginning to remind me of the chicken fights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpoki4wBwtA) from Family Guy. It just keeps going.
Like Canada vs. USA on the ice right now. Over time!
Quote from: Benoist;363653Like Canada vs. USA on the ice right now. Over time!
... and Canada WINS.
The Gold is ours, baby!
Luck.
Quote from: One Horse Town;363658Luck.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_m4xMQ9f9beQ/SxbXtU7Kc1I/AAAAAAAAAiE/726b3qE_Bkg/s400/fuck_you.jpg)
:D
Boys, boys. At least we kept 1-2 in North America. Now all we have to do is teach the Mexicans to play hockey.
Quote from: Benoist;363656... and Canada WINS.
The Gold is ours, baby!
Well fought, sir. Hell of a match, hell of a match. One for the history books.
Quote from: Zachary The First;363675Well fought, sir. Hell of a match, hell of a match. One for the history books.
Absolutely. And the US definitely was a worthy opponent. Ryan Miller is one hell of a goalie. My Lord.
Quote from: two_fishes;363640don't worry about it. your obvious idiocy dulls the sting of your words.
I see you haven´t adressed the "fiction" accusation. We must assume we were right in predicitng your frogerised storytelliness.
Quote from: Settembrini;363759I see you haven´t adressed the "fiction" accusation. We must assume we were right in predicitng your frogerised storytelliness.
no, you idiot, you were wrong. i'm just not willing to repeat myself for the benefit of a few assholes. if you had actually read my last few exchanges with David R, it would be obvious that was not my intent with the word fiction at all.
But you DO enjoy the "fiction" of forgerdom! Look at yourself, BURNING FUCKING WHEELS. Artha, my ass.
QuoteI had stumbled across the Forge online and found a group of people in the city trying out a lot of games that came out of there. We played a lot of different games--one-shots and short runs, but also some lengthy runs of Burning Wheel/Empires and Heroquest. Its been great. I also played in a regular D&D 3rd campaign for a couple years--fun overall, but less satisfying and often frustrating.
That´s the idiot´s "fiction" right there in boldface. Oh, and poor little story wanker is frustrated by actual gaming, take this candy.
Quote from: Settembrini;363771Oh, and poor lttle story wanker is frustrated by actual gaming, take this candy.
jesus, what are you, 7 years old?
Quote from: Benoist;363676Ryan Miller is one hell of a goalie. My Lord.
I watched him play at Michigan State. I was at Munn Arena the night he tied the NCAA shut-out record, and he proceeded to break it the next night. He won the Hobey Baker that year, and went to the Sabres organization the next. A very special player.
Bit ironic - Canada, USA, and Finland went gold, silver, and bronze in both men's and women's hockey. The Swedes and the Slovaks will be looking for blood in Sochi.
Quotefictional - fabricated: formed or conceived by the imagination; "a fabricated excuse for his absence"; "a fancied wrong"; "a fictional character"
:idunno:
Quote from: two_fishes;363772jesus, what are you, 7 years old?
That's an insult to the entire 7 year old population.
Quote from: Aos;363831That's an insult to the entire 7 year old population.
To be honest, I imagine everything settembri writes being spoken
vith ze ridikyuluss Cherman ahkzent, like the kraftwerk-loving Germans from the Simpsons.
Quote from: two_fishes;363489don't worry, someone's bound to jump on it. but really, i feel vaguely frustrated, like there might be something here, something you're trying to say that i'm simply unable to see.
The difference in intents between narrative and immersive role-playing isn't so much what is the intent, but
whose intent.
Let's take the killing the orc example
In a narrative rpg, you are following the intent of the player to make a good story by killing the orc, saving the girl, etc. You succeed by narrating the fiction the way you want.
In an immersive rpg, you are following the intent of the character to kill the orc because if he doesn't he dies, his town is raided, etc. The character succeeds by killing the orc. You succeed because your character has. This could make for a great story later for the players to talk about.
another analogy:
The 1980 US Hockey team didn't take the ice in Lake Placid in order to create the Miracle on Ice as one of sports greatest stories - life doesn't work that way. They went out to win the gold medal, and success in that action became one of sports greatest stories.
So if the story is made the way it's made in life - as the organic result of actions, it's immersive. If the story was constructed as a goal unto itself, it's narrative metagaming.
Quote from: CRKrueger;364239So if the story is made the way it's made in life - as the organic result of actions, it's immersive. If the story was constructed as a goal unto itself, it's narrative metagaming.
Play-modes aren't mutually exclusive. If you break out the minis and start deciding what's the best way to act tactically, despite the fact that your character may not think or react the way you're going to make them by 'playing the game.' The mantra of a lot of old D&D material written by Gygax and other "greats" was "challenge the players." Well, you really can't do that without pulling the players out of their characters for a bit to metagame (or as Matt Finch put it in the Old School Primer, act as their "guardian angel" by engaging with the challenges presented to you as a player).
Every game has periods where you step out and metagame, and periods where you engage with the character directly in immersive play. It's just a matter of when it happens and why.
That's a sort of camel's nose argument, and also a bit mistaken.
To begin with, while it's true that calculating decisions in the midst of melee isn't very realistic, it doesn't interrupt the illusion of immersion because frankly, people aren't aware of the falsity of the representation. On the other hand if you're pointing specifically to the use of minis and the god's-eye view they provide, it's felt as an anti-immersive effect by a lot of people, many of whom prefer not to use minis for that reason.
Secondly, challenge the players doesn't really, or necessarily, refer to metagaming at all. It just means that the players will have to figure things out and describe their actions as if they were actually there, instead of relying on skill rolls. If anything the approach is more immersive for that reason. But it's often misunderstood because many roleplayers see their activity today as taking on a made-up persona, while "challenge the players" is more like providing a "verbal holodeck". It's roleplaying in a manner similar to training/evaluation exercises as used in government, the military, and business.
I´d like just to point out the fact that instead of adressing the salient point, two_fishes chooses to brainfart.
Let´s recap: We have the postulate, that people use the word "fiction" as an ideological term. The underlying ideology is proven to be destructive to the hobby and especially any meaningful debate about gaming. As is just the case in this very thread!
And we have strong evidence of ideological self-indoctrination and adoption of said ideology by the individual in question.
This equals "speaking moon", see above.
These salient poitns have not been adressed by the individual calling himself two_fishes. Instead we know only about his meddlings with 7 year olds and his TV set. Two things that followers of said ideology are pretty much addicted to, it seems.
Returning to the 4e DMG 2, it is very clear that the proposed techniques are an outcrop of institutionalized misunderstandings about the process and aim of RPG games themselves, as well as a crass misinterpretation of gaming population´s practices.
This is only mellowed by the fact that a non-fundamentalist seemingly paralell praxis of player input already exists at most tables.
Much like the "story concentration" that implicitly and explicitly was to be found in the 2e DMG.
Both instances are dangerous in those moments were wrong paralellisms are drawn and fundamentalist perceptions of the texts in question gain a following. This haas caused and will caused dysfunctional gaming.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;364254To begin with, while it's true that calculating decisions in the midst of melee isn't very realistic, it doesn't interrupt the illusion of immersion because frankly, people aren't aware of the falsity of the representation.
They're not? When I'm playing my Gnome Bard, I don't think to myself, "What the hell am I doing in the middle of a combat?"
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;364254Secondly, challenge the players doesn't really, or necessarily, refer to metagaming at all. It just means that the players will have to figure things out and describe their actions as if they were actually there, instead of relying on skill rolls.
You mean instead of acting in character and relying on their character to figure things out, right?
Seanchai
Quote from: Settembrini;364260Let´s recap: We have the postulate, that people use the word "fiction" as an ideological term.
Quote from: two_fishes;363766no, you idiot, you were wrong. i'm just not willing to repeat myself for the benefit of a few assholes. if you had actually read my last few exchanges with David R, it would be obvious that was not my intent with the word fiction at all.
Quote from: two_fishes;363458Maybe it's the word fiction that's causing a misunderstanding, with its connotations of story. I'm trying to use it to say players try to control pieces of what happens in the made-up stuff that all members of the group are collaboratively creating. Rules and dice limit what they are allowed to say. Any time a player describes anything in the made-up stuff, there's intent to change the made-up stuff. Participating in the game is influencing the fiction.
Quote from: two_fishes;363481But regardless of the intent of the player --and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up. Who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.
So, you moron, you were wrong. I was, in this case, very clearly and explicitly not using the word in any ideological sense.
Actually you have PROVEN my point! Again!
Indeed, he has. It's lumpley/anyway rhetorical BS 101. Mistaking the map for the territory, etc.
He even said creative agenda.
You get all the fun ones, sett.
RPGPundit