Borgstrom is still a Moron, but this thread is about my Law

[RPGPundit]

Ok, since the Swine over-ran my SECOND thread that was supposed to be about discussing my law, and turned that one into a debate about Nobilis just like they did the FIRST one, we're going to give this fucker a THIRD try.

Only this time, let me be more clear: THIS thread is NOT for discussion of the Monarda law, nobilis, or mz. Borgstrom. This thread is for discussion of the concept that players will grow and have more fulfilling experiences in a campaign if their characters suffer than if their characters are mollycoddled, as presented in my "Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law".
And since you already have TWO ruined threads to dump your turds all over, any post in this thread that tries to make the conversation about Borgstrom or Nobilis will have their post deleted.  Its not censorship, its thread control in the same style of the Pistols at Dawn thing.  You can go start a dozen threads about your love for Nobilis if you really want, or keep right on crapping all over the last two attempts at discussing this gaming theory. But here we're talking about THIS law.

So let's hear your opinions: should players be given whatever they like? Is that how you create protagonism? Is growth of characters something that's experienced when they march in, slay the dragon or get crowned king of fairyland or whatever, without having had to break a sweat? Or is it when they are dragged through the mud, lose everything that matters to them, have to struggle to stay alive, and end up "taking death and turning it into a fighting chance at life"?

Once more, the text of the law:

"RPGPundit's Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law

If your players make requests, unless it is absolutely certain that it is allowed, always say no. You can make it a reserved "no", one that allows for the possibility that if the players' circumstances or approach changes they may be able to do what they're intending or get what they want. Or you can make it a loud boisterous "NO, fuckwit!", involving some kind of a pipe beating to immediately follow. But always say no unless its blatantly obvious that you must permit what they're desiring, either because the player has been crafty enough in his use of resources, or because the player has earned it through sheer balls.

I propose that players and gaming groups will actually be FAR less dysfunctional using the Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law, than they will with the Monarda Law. I've been running games for a very long time, and with a great deal of success. My OD&D players have repeatedly said that this was their favourite setting, that the game was the one game they would keep playing no matter the circumstances; my Traveller players say that this campaign is unlike any they have ever done before, my Port Blacksand players too have stated that they would choose that campaign over any other. So I feel pretty safe in saying my method works. And it has worked for decades now.

And my method is simple. Make the fuckers bleed.

Make them suffer.
Make them face impossible, life threatening odds. Make it clear that you're the one in charge of what they get or don't get, and generally don't give them anything.

Hell, by the time my last Amber campaign had reached its zenith, most of my players were at the point where their characters would have considered death a sweet embracing release.

And the players kept coming back, desperate for more, every week. As they do in all my campaigns.

Why? Because those are what great campaigns are made of. A campaign where your players get to willy-nilly wish for whatever they like will be a short lived and very troubled campaign.

And this strikes at the very heart of what's wrong with Swine-narrativism, of why it is so unbelievably inane. It proposes that each player is a protagonist. But every player can't be a protagonist. Yes, I know, you all want to play dark troubled ultrapowerful superbeings who are the only hope for a universe they may not want to save, but see, you can't ALL be the "only" hope.

Protagonism doesn't actually work in RPGs. At least not individual protagonism, at least not all at once. And narrativism tries to do exactly that. Which is why it's bullshit.

Trust me, make your PCs suffer. Make them suffer horribly. Then make them suffer some more. Make it seem like their every wish is being denied, then their every hope. But occasionally, when by the strength of their own will they pull a victory out of the jaws of defeat, give it to them. Sometimes with dark consequences, but give it.

For fuck's sake, don't let them all survive, either. Kill some of them, seemingly at random. The ones that do survive, and conquer, and go on to make things right again, and ultimately triumph, will be all the more satisfied. Because in that type of campaign their victories, their gains, mean something. Every time they run square into grim death and pluck out a fighting chance at life, it will mean something, because they'll fucking well know the DM brooked them no favours.

And that, Mz. Borgstrom and associated Narrativist Swine, is how you create protagonism."

RPGPundit

[TonyLB]

Again, I'm glad that you've gotten good results with your groups doing this.

You wouldn't get such good results with me.

So as a personal style, for your group?  Sounds cool.

As a universal law for every group?  No.  It doesn't work.

[Blackleaf]

1) I still don't think Ms. Borgstrom warrants the current level of hostility.  Her fans, perhaps, but I haven't seen anything Moronic from her -- apart from people's personal preferences in games.  I don't think I'd like her game, but I'll go out of my way to defend her right to make her game, unless it was in some way literally hurting other people.  I think if you want positive discussion around your game theory, the title of this thread and reference to Borgstrom could be hurting that... More flies with honey and all...

Anyway...

2) Should Players have to struggle in a game?  Absolutely.  Should they get whatever they ask for? If they do, that's not a game.  Could a game be based on WHAT they ask for?  Maybe, but you need to have rules that support that and a way of determining success or failure.

From my blog: Game Design Theory, Part I

A game:

• rewards players for overcoming challenges
• requires interaction between the players that affects these challenges
• balances the costs and risks to participants with the rewards being offered

If there is no challenge, there is no game.

[blakkie]

"Borgstrom is still a Moron, but this thread is about my self imposed ignorance"

That was a quick loop, 3rd time's a charm?  The reason that thread was a loony bin was because it started out with a loony premise right from the start. So I guess I'll go with Levi and just sit back and laugh... :popcorn:

...and really, who can't get a good chuckle out of this? Bill the Bunny!

:rotfl:

[The Yann Waters]

2) Should Players have to struggle in a game?  Absolutely.  Should they get whatever they ask for? If they do, that's not a game.  Could a game be based on WHAT they ask for?  Maybe, but you need to have rules that support that and a way of determining success or failure.

Agreed. Conflict is vital.

[Christmas Ape]

Eh. Heard it before, really. Give a 90% unpleasant experience, and they'll keep showing up every week in hopes of getting that 10% of good. Pretty common reward cycle theory.

Trick is, I'm not trying to 'grow' my players. They're not test subjects, they're not a therapy group, they're not some "look at my big geek dick!" project. They're friends of mine who got together to throw dice, talk shop about gaming and other hobbies, win some conflicts, lose some others, munch some snack food, and discover the experience of the story we're telling with the rules. So frankly, Stuart's got a lot more to say I can use. I'm gonna start reading his blog from now on, in fact. His and Rotwang!'s; some tips of design (which I enjoy), and stuff about getting back to Adventure. What more does a gamer need?

So, uh...thanks for that?

[Maddman]

"You're so right Pundit, Rebecca Borgstrom is a moron."

Is this what we're supposed to say?  I'm trying to get it right, I'd hate for you to have to make a third thread.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Reminds me of Tim's (T-Willard) style in his semi-legendary YotZ playtest games.  I've always been sad that I'm in entirely the wrong timezone for them.  It wouldn't work for me as a GM (I'm entirely too nice a person), but I'd love to play in a group like that, at least every once in a while

Edit: I've just remembered that I reviewed HAAC:0 and playtested HAAC:1 so I have GM'd games like that and had a blast.  By the end of Hold At All Costs: One, the PC's have been on their feet and fighting for 72 hours (with Fatigue penalties to match) and are running entirely on "Ranger Speed" (which I know now is a mixture of caffeine powder and tabasco sauce, taken nasally).  They have survived two helicopter crashes.  They have delivered a baby on a rooftop while under sniper and mortar fire.  They have rescued an SAS troupe from a situation the SAS described as "slightly worrisome".  They have wrestled with the moral dilema of if they take enough ammunition to complete their mission they will be depriving their comrades.  They have even (hopefully) resisted the temptation to throw a thinly-veiled Paris Hilton out of the side of a Blackhawk.

And their players have had a blast doing it

[RPGPundit]

Again, I'm glad that you've gotten good results with your groups doing this.

You wouldn't get such good results with me.

So as a personal style, for your group?  Sounds cool.

As a universal law for every group?  No.  It doesn't work.

Why "wouldn't" I get such good results with you?

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

1) I still don't think Ms. Borgstrom warrants the current level of hostility.  Her fans, perhaps, but I haven't seen anything Moronic from her -- apart from people's personal preferences in games.  I don't think I'd like her game, but I'll go out of my way to defend her right to make her game, unless it was in some way literally hurting other people.  I think if you want positive discussion around your game theory, the title of this thread and reference to Borgstrom could be hurting that... More flies with honey and all...

Anyway...

I can't really help what the title of my Law was, over a year ago.

2) Should Players have to struggle in a game?  Absolutely.  Should they get whatever they ask for? If they do, that's not a game.  Could a game be based on WHAT they ask for?  Maybe, but you need to have rules that support that and a way of determining success or failure.

From my blog: Game Design Theory, Part I

A game:

• rewards players for overcoming challenges
• requires interaction between the players that affects these challenges
• balances the costs and risks to participants with the rewards being offered

If there is no challenge, there is no game.

And if the players get to define or limit their challenges, its not a real challenge.

And the more challenging a game is, the more rewarded the Players feel by overcoming it.

RPGPundit

[Maddman]

Why "wouldn't" I get such good results with you?

RPGPundit

You might with me, depending on the game.  Some games are good for saying "yes, your character is awesome, lets see what cool stuff you can do" and other games are good for saying "life is hard and if you slip up it will put a knife in your face".  Neither should be univerally applied to every game, which is what you seem to be saying.  That the former is the wrong way to play RPGs and the latter is the right way to play RPGs.  Or am I misunderstanding something?

And this is most definitely censorship.  If you don't want people talking about the B-lady maybe you shouldn't call her a moron in the thread title.

[RPGPundit]

Eh. Heard it before, really. Give a 90% unpleasant experience, and they'll keep showing up every week in hopes of getting that 10% of good. Pretty common reward cycle theory.

Trick is, I'm not trying to 'grow' my players. They're not test subjects, they're not a therapy group, they're not some "look at my big geek dick!" project. They're friends of mine who got together to throw dice, talk shop about gaming and other hobbies, win some conflicts, lose some others, munch some snack food, and discover the experience of the story we're telling with the rules. So frankly, Stuart's got a lot more to say I can use. I'm gonna start reading his blog from now on, in fact. His and Rotwang!'s; some tips of design (which I enjoy), and stuff about getting back to Adventure. What more does a gamer need?

So, uh...thanks for that?

Except that ultimately, that game with your friends becomes more entertaining if you are in a game that provides a reason to keep coming consistently to play.

I mean hell, if the game were chess, and because your buddy was coming over to your house just to have a good time, and you ALWAYS let him win; it would stop being a good time pretty fucking fast, and turn into a bore for both of you.

My players are my friends too. That's WHY I want to give them the best game possible.

What you're arguing seems to be "because they're my friends I should run a game that will end up getting boring faster". Doesn't make much sense...

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

"You're so right Pundit, Rebecca Borgstrom is a moron."

Is this what we're supposed to say?  I'm trying to get it right, I'd hate for you to have to make a third thread.

Nope. You're supposed to talk about my Law on this thread, or shut the fuck up.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

You might with me, depending on the game.  Some games are good for saying "yes, your character is awesome, lets see what cool stuff you can do" and other games are good for saying "life is hard and if you slip up it will put a knife in your face".  Neither should be univerally applied to every game, which is what you seem to be saying.  That the former is the wrong way to play RPGs and the latter is the right way to play RPGs.  Or am I misunderstanding something?

And this is most definitely censorship.  If you don't want people talking about the B-lady maybe you shouldn't call her a moron in the thread title.

Censorship would be if I said you couldn't start an "I love Rebecca borgstrom" thread. Or, for that matter, an "RPGPundit is a Moron" thread.

I can't help that my law is called what its called. Its a stupid nonsensical name, I admit. Just like "monarda" is a stupid nonsensical name for Borgstrom's law.

It sucks, but what can one do?  

RPGPundit

PS: and no, I think the "your character is Awesome!" school of thought, if that awesomeness is unearned and unchallengable by the GM, is pretty much crap. It makes for games that quickly get dull. Its the modern equivalent of the old "Monty Haul Campaign", its JUST like saying "wouldn't it be cooler if everyone STARTED with +10 Holy Avengers just CAUSE??"
Do you not see how that ends badly?

I don't have a problem with giving characters a lot of power, like Amberites have a lot of power; but the point is that after that, you have to give them at least as many hardships as they have power. And the more power, the more hardships. The more suffering you need to make the game interesting and worthwhile.  In basic-level D&D, just struggling to survive is challenge enough to create growth of character.  But in high-power games, you NEED to have a situation where characters go through hell.  And to do that you have to have a GM that isn't hamstringed by being forced to obey the whims and demands of his players.

[Maddman]

Nope. You're supposed to talk about my Law on this thread, or shut the fuck up.

RPGPundit

Okay.  I think your law is good for some games, but not all.  I think it was put on the last thread that you either say yes or roll dice, or you say no or roll dice, and let the players know how you're going to roll.  It can make for some good gaming, but isn't universal.  Say yes can be lots of fun too, just in a different way.