How do you roleplay? (Forked from Narrative thread)

[Gronan of Simmerya]

If your point has been that the GM is the arbiter of consistency, that players should align their expectations with the setting that was created by the GM, and that the players shouldn't expect to be able to change or create the world to suit their expectations, than you did a piss poor job of saying that.

If your point was, as it seemed to be, that the GM is to blame for any misunderstanding, that everyone else at the table should accommodate as much as possible the POV of any player, e.g. your imagined tapestry or shotgun, unless it was clearly communicated in a way that everyone at the table, was able to understand it, then your position is far more absolute that you are trying to now make it seem.

Aaaaand here we have most of this thread summed up in two short paragraphs.

[Gronan of Simmerya]

I play RPGs to explore an existent, imaginary world. The more the world seems, feels, and behaves like an actual world the easier it is to do that. Because we play games for fun, those worlds usually are not our world and they may set in the distant past or the far future. The world may include faster-than-light travel, alien races, magic, or horrible secrets humanity was not meant to know. But the world should still seem like a world that is real, at least in an imaginary sense. Because of this, and for other reasons, consistency in the world setting is crucial for my long term enjoyment of the game, whether as a player or as a GM.

The ability of other players to create elements of the world or setting as we play can, and often does, negatively impact the consistency of the setting as well as the feel of an existent imaginary world. So I'm not too keen on including bennies, rules, or conventions that foster or facilitate that sort of player creation of the setting. I want the GM to create the setting. I want the GM to curate and maintain the setting. I want that so that the setting will be explorable and so that it will feel like it has existence while it is being explored. I don't want the feeling that ordinary, mundane shops and houses are plywood flats and behind them are the tumbleweeds of a vacant Republic films lot. Players creating new elements of the setting give me the feeling that the setting is being created after the shop door is opened.

I have a similar feeling but from a different direction.

Simply put, for me there is a huge difference between imaginative creating and imaginative exploring.  For me the explicit fun of playing, as opposed to running, an RPG is the exploration and the surprise that can result therefrom.  As a referee the fun is in the creating and the surprise is generated when the players interact with my creation, with the dice throwing some chaos in there.  Helping to create the world as a player flies directly in the face of the fun I want as a player... the fun of SURPRISE.

It's the one thing I hated about Dungeon World.

"Who is the First Paladin of the Temple of Cuthbert?"
"You tell me who it is."
"FUCK YOU ASSHOLE, YOU'RE THE REFEREE!!!"

[Omega]

And unless it is somehow directly relevant to the play of the moment, any player who presses too hard will be told that the dog's name is "FUCK YOU, THAT'S WHAT THE DOG'S NAME IS!"

Players bugged me, again, about a random ship docked at a station.
Ships name: Damfino. Liner class. Constructed at Keaton Shipyards. :hatsoff:

[Exploderwizard]

"Who is the First Paladin of the Temple of Cuthbert?"
"You tell me who it is."
"FUCK YOU ASSHOLE, YOU'RE THE REFEREE!!!"

This needs to be added to the Dungeon World list of possible responses database.

[Tod13]

I play RPGs to explore an existent, imaginary world. The more the world seems, feels, and behaves like an actual world the easier it is to do that. Because we play games for fun, those worlds usually are not our world and they may set in the distant past or the far future. The world may include faster-than-light travel, alien races, magic, or horrible secrets humanity was not meant to know. But the world should still seem like a world that is real, at least in an imaginary sense. Because of this, and for other reasons, consistency in the world setting is crucial for my long term enjoyment of the game, whether as a player or as a GM.

The ability of other players to create elements of the world or setting as we play can, and often does, negatively impact the consistency of the setting as well as the feel of an existent imaginary world. So I'm not too keen on including bennies, rules, or conventions that foster or facilitate that sort of player creation of the setting. I want the GM to create the setting. I want the GM to curate and maintain the setting. I want that so that the setting will be explorable and so that it will feel like it has existence while it is being explored. I don't want the feeling that ordinary, mundane shops and houses are plywood flats and behind them are the tumbleweeds of a vacant Republic films lot. Players creating new elements of the setting give me the feeling that the setting is being created after the shop door is opened.

I have a similar feeling but from a different direction.

Simply put, for me there is a huge difference between imaginative creating and imaginative exploring.  For me the explicit fun of playing, as opposed to running, an RPG is the exploration and the surprise that can result therefrom.  As a referee the fun is in the creating and the surprise is generated when the players interact with my creation, with the dice throwing some chaos in there.  Helping to create the world as a player flies directly in the face of the fun I want as a player... the fun of SURPRISE.

Double quoting since it sums up my thoughts too.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Bren View Post
If your point has been that the GM is the arbiter of consistency, that players should align their expectations with the setting that was created by the GM, and that the players shouldn't expect to be able to change or create the world to suit their expectations, than you did a piss poor job of saying that.

If your point was, as it seemed to be, that the GM is to blame for any misunderstanding, that everyone else at the table should accommodate as much as possible the POV of any player, e.g. your imagined tapestry or shotgun, unless it was clearly communicated in a way that everyone at the table, was able to understand it, then your position is far more absolute that you are trying to now make it seem.

Aaaaand here we have most of this thread summed up in two short paragraphs.

Yup.

I have a similar feeling but from a different direction.

Simply put, for me there is a huge difference between imaginative creating and imaginative exploring.  For me the explicit fun of playing, as opposed to running, an RPG is the exploration and the surprise that can result therefrom.  As a referee the fun is in the creating and the surprise is generated when the players interact with my creation, with the dice throwing some chaos in there.  Helping to create the world as a player flies directly in the face of the fun I want as a player... the fun of SURPRISE.

Yes. And for me, the fun of being in a situation and working with that situation as it is represented, in ways that make sense. Where the situation is consistent and trying to be realistic, not "it's more fun if swords shoot lazers" nor "it's no fun if there's a chance I might get killed by one of the enemy soldiers I'm fighting - they aren't as special as my PC!" nor "hey I suddenly have a cool-sounding idea, let's make it suddenly exist", etc. etc, etc.

It's the one thing I hated about Dungeon World.

"Who is the First Paladin of the Temple of Cuthbert?"
"You tell me who it is."
"FUCK YOU ASSHOLE, YOU'RE THE REFEREE!!!"

LOL! Ya, or really, "Oh crap, I'm in the wrong... er... game? Excuse me while I go find another game."

[Nikita]

In my view the role of player set as a GM is that she serves as a gatekeeper to fictional game universe. In essence her job is to make sure the new ideas conform to existing game/setting. I started to ponder this issue a bit more last night and the question of whether players should be able to invent more "reality of setting" and my conclusion is that they should be able to suggest ideas but not dictate it. In essence GM should listen but always have the last word.

My logic comes from brainstorming technique which we use extensively in creative arts and business. In the brainstorming wild ideas ("sharks shooting lasers from their eyes") are accepted to list of ideas of things to evaluate but ultimately the evaluation decides what is accepted and what is not. The key here is that ideas need to be acceptable by fitting to theme or subject in hand.

In typical creative group (in my own experience in technology R&D, game design and corporate planning for doing it professionally) the evaluation and thus deciding what is accepted is always done by someone who is personally responsible for results. In typical RPG group that someone is GM who also has best idea what the setting and situation is.

Thus in my view the best method for making things is for GM to listen for ideas but decide on her own what to keep and what to employ from ideas brought forwards by other players. The key to achieve this is open communication between everyone in the table.

[Phillip]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If the setting and not the rules defines what the character can and cannot do, why are you looking up a rule in the first place?

I'm usually not, because I have the rule internalized. The reason for a formal statement that does need to be looked up is that it's quicker than looking up and processing all over the mass of data that the simple algorithm consolidates.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, we can get on with our chariot race.

[Phillip]

Do you think you are the only person in the game? You don’t know what they assumed until you announce “I grab the shotgun behind the bar.” The responses I would expect will range along a continuum something like this.

    Frustration: “This is a bar in the uptown part of town. There shouldn’t be a damn shotgun behind the bar.”

    Confusion: “There’s a shotgun. Damn I don’t remember the GM saying that. Oh well, I must have missed something again.”

    Irritation: “Anon has a shotgun. Well no point in me bothering to intimidate the bruisers like I planned. Yet another opportunity ruined by his creative additions.”

    Relief: “Great! Anon got a shotgun, we are saved.”

    Emulation: “And I grab the .44 magnum in the cash register. Let’s rock and roll baby!”

Some of these responses will never be articulated and may even, for various social reasons, be minimized or hidden by the players affected so you may never know the negative impact you had on their fun. That you think you already know best, makes it even less likely you will notice any conflicting data.

If that extended example doesn't jar the dude's solipsism, it's probably hopeless. If he really wants to play with himself, he's missing the point of the game.

[Anon Adderlan]

For me someone just grabbing a weapon out of the blue is very immersion breaking because we don't know there is a weapon there.

All my players are the same. They key off of area descriptions and tend to scope out a locale as needed or ask me for more details as they focus on something. Once we know some baser details we know it is safe to assume that some things are present even if not stated every single time.

Same when I am the player and gaming with the girls. For example once we know a dungeon is a little crumbly or in disrepair. We can safely assume that there are rocks and debris here and there that make make for emergency sling ammo. But if the place is well kept then we know we will not and so do not. So we are not "editing" the word. We are playing off known factors.

This is my point in a nutshell.

If declaring the existence of a thing validates expectations, then it's great. If it fits within expectations, then it's good. But if it clashes with expectations, then it's bad. Every group is different, and my issue is that too many people seem to believe these expectations are universal.

For example...

the setting includes how physics work.

And for me, the fun of being in a situation and working with that situation as it is represented, in ways that make sense. Where the situation is consistent and trying to be realistic

The more the world seems, feels, and behaves like an actual world the easier it is to do that.

But the world should still seem like a world that is real, at least in an imaginary sense.

...can we say for certain these people have the same idea of what 'real' is?

Not everything a character can do is certain, when it is not certain you need to adjudicate the result based on the circumstances and make ruling. For RPGs, the rules are a set of codified rulings.

The problem is many players assume every RPG leaves the same things uncertain, and instead of adapting or just recognizing that fact get angry and defensive about it.

But that event that differ from individual to individual.

Exactly.

The ability of other players to create elements of the world or setting as we play can, and often does, negatively impact the consistency of the setting as well as the feel of an existent imaginary world.

Then it shouldn't be done, which is part of considering other people's expectations at the table.

Players creating new elements of the setting give me the feeling that the setting is being created after the shop door is opened.

Then it shouldn't be done when you're a player. You're getting too hung up on 'creating' elements when the issue is expectation clash and suspension of disbelief. If the former conflicts with the latter, then of course it should be avoided.

Worse still, creations made by multiple people tend towards inconsistency.

You seem to  prioritize supporting the imagination and world creation of everyone at the table.  That is one possible goal when gaming. However, if that is your first priority in the game you will end up with a less consistent setting than if you place consistency as a higher priority.

That's why RPGs have rules and (usually) GMs. If there's anything RPGs have in common as a medium, it's that they're ultimately a product of creations made by multiple people. And while maybe a gun under the table is a bridge too far, I doubt finding beer at a bar is going to disrupt much of anything.

In my experience, more often than not, a player doing that causes a discontinuity in the setting for multiple people at the table.

I'd actually like to hear more about your specific experience, preferably an actual example

And since it is time consuming to discuss and adjudicate such attempts at player creation during play, in general, I prefer to avoid a style of play or a set of rules that encourages doing that.

Because it's time consuming? Compared to what exactly? Resolving combat? Arguments over rules interpretations?

But assuming that all such failures are due solely or even mainly to the GM flies in the face of my experience playing and running RPGs.

But blaming the GM is a popular thing to do and say on online forums,

While some find it fashionable to blame the GM for all problems at the table, communication is a two way street.

I don't assume that all such misunderstandings are rooted in the GM's failure to communicate clearly.

Blaming the GM for everything is a common position for some players, especially players who are unwilling or unable to consider their own contribution to the problem.

If your point was, as it seemed to be, that the GM is to blame for any misunderstanding,

You seem focused on the GM side of communication regardless of the situation.

It's never solely anyone's fault in a communications problem. However, the GM is the central facilitator of communication at the table, so at the very least should recognize when a communication problem is emerging.

Are the GM's changes any more disruptive than a players?

They can be, and undermining a player's character concept into unplayability is not exactly as uncommon occurrence.

maybe we shouldn't support the imagination of other people at the table because that sort of invention in the moment that you seem to advocate conflicts with a desire to explore an imaginary world or to envision that imaginary world as having an existence outside of the imagination of the individual player.

I was talking about exploring the world. You were talking about players creating elements of the world. Those aims conflict.

So I get that it does for you, and I'm not denying that, but as long as you're not the one creating those elements what does it matter?

Once you want your imagining to be privileged over that of the others at the table you have become the problem.

And by 'problem' you mean GM

People who are busy imagining a lot of details often, in my experience, aren't actively listening. So they miss stuff. Stuff that the other players who are paying attention do notice.

'Imagining details' isn't even in the top 10 reasons players miss stuff.

Saying that "we must support the imagination of everyone at the table to some degree" doesn't really say much though does it?

Support how? To what degree? What happens when the POVs conflict?

That's a great question and one which deserves its own thread (when I have the time). It's also a question every RPG system should be answering.

Some players do imagine automatically hitting the bad guy. I've seen that many times, especially with players who come to RPGs without a background in war games. Understanding that such is not within their control is something those players need to learn to play the game.

Which game? Every RPG leaves different things outside a player's control.

"Play to the GM" sounds like mother-may-I to me. I don't know if that was your intent, but I have zero interest in debating mother-may-I as a caricature of a play style that focuses on exploring a world or simulating an imaginary reality.

Yeah, because asking to continually verify the fictional reality and what you can do in/to it isn't anything like that

That said, whether spending more time considering the POV of everyone else at the table is actually the best use of everyone's finite time and attention is still an open question.

When you make a statement like "the more we consider everyone's PoVs during play, the more we maximize everyone's fun" you are making a universal statement. Which certainly seems as if you think you do know best what would be fun for me and for others. Which is why I suggested you might show us the courtesy of accepting we already know what we like.

Not considering the PoV of other players at the table is one of the few cases where I will accuse you of badwrongfun. Of course this may have something to due to the brain damage I suffered from too many people claiming "I'm just playing my character" to justify being a dick.

You have continually put forth the idea that we are not reading what you wrote.

My only hope is I did it enough, and that somehow, SOMEHOW, the sarcasm got through.

If your point has been that the GM is the arbiter of consistency,

Yes.

that players should align their expectations with the setting that was created by the GM,

Yes.

and that the players shouldn't expect to be able to change or create the world to suit their expectations,

Unless those changes are consistent with or support the expectations of others. Things like this are also why system matters.

How can elements that are not identified possibly have been defined to the players?

The elements were defined before the players encountered them, and nothing the players could do would change that.

Although my mimicry of Brit understatement probably didn't make it clear, I'm not an IPA fan. They tend to all fall into the category of what I label as "too hoppy."

#NotAllIPAs

But yeah, this one's pretty hoppy.

[Bren]

If declaring the existence of a thing validates expectations, then it's great. If it fits within expectations, then it's good. But if it clashes with expectations, then it's bad. Every group is different, and my issue is that too many people seem to believe these expectations are universal.

For example...
 

I started out the post that you have repeatedly quoted by saying, "I play RPGs to explore an existent, imaginary world." I don't know how much more specific and less universal I can make a statement than to talk about why I play RPGs.

You then go on and quote me multiple times to point out that my preferences aren't universal. Well no duh! That's why they are my preferences. If they were universal they'd be something else – like an autonomic response. How do you get from me talking about this is what I like to me purportedly saying this is what everybody likes should like?

If there's anything RPGs have in common as a medium, it's that they're ultimately a product of creations made by multiple people. And while maybe a gun under the table is a bridge too far, I doubt finding beer at a bar is going to disrupt much of anything.

Most of the time you would be right that beer in a bar was a reasonable expectation. Not always, but most of the time. And if it is the most reasonable expectation (like beer in most bars) then I agree that people don't tend to get too fussed about it. Nor do I think we need a special rule to prevent GMs from arbitrarily making beer disappear from the bar just to frustrate his players. That sort of behavior is best solved by a short talk and/or a short walk.

The question is what happens if this is Icetown where there is no beer* in the bars? Should the player reset his expectations to align with the setting or should the setting change to accommodate the player? I'd prefer the player realign their expectation.

Because it's time consuming? Compared to what exactly?

Compared to putting the resolution in the hands of the GM by default. That's generally going to be faster than a group debate and consensus building exercise.

They can be, and undermining a player's character concept into unplayability is not exactly as uncommon occurrence.

You say "undermining a player's character concept," I say keeping the world consistent and playing the game we agreed to play. Some character concepts just don't fit the setting or the game.

Since I don't play in open worlds where players just show up to play with brand new character concepts, whether a character concept fits the setting and the table typically gets ironed out during character creation. Absent an actual example, I can't tell if we are in disagreement about desired outcomes here. But in practice, I don't think I've ever seen a GM undermining a PC into actual unplayability. I've read some stories on the Internet, but I've never actually seen that. But I've never seen a fat bearded man play a lesbian, ninja, stripper either.** According to some, I lead a sheltered gaming existence.

Originally Posted by Bren  
I was talking about exploring the world. You were talking about players creating elements of the world. Those aims conflict

So I get that it does for you, and I'm not denying that, but as long as you're not the one creating those elements what does it matter?

Yes it matters.  It clearly and obviously places setting creation in play rather than outside of play which makes it more difficult to imagine exploring an existent imaginary world since we all just created the element. In addition, as I've already said, multiple creators tend towards creating settings that are more of a miscellany than a consistent vision.

Which game?

Since I started out by saying "I play RPGs to explore an existent, imaginary world"; I assumed you would understand that I was talking about the games I play or run.

Originally Posted by Bren  
When you make a statement like "the more we consider everyone's PoVs during play, the more we maximize everyone's fun" you are making a universal statement. Which certainly seems as if you think you do know best what would be fun for me and for others. Which is why I suggested you might show us the courtesy of accepting we already know what we like.

Not considering the PoV of other players at the table is one of the few cases where I will accuse you of badwrongfun. Of course this may have something to due to the brain damage I suffered from too many people claiming "I'm just playing my character" to justify being a dick.

I didn't say one should never consider the PoV of the other people at the table, but people only have finite resources and attention. One can't spend all their time and attention considering the PoV of the other players and still play the game. Even you cannot always be considering the PoV of the other players. The  question is how much of your time and attention should be spent on considering other's PoV's instead of attending to other things like actively  listening to descriptions, looking at clues, maps, party orders, deciding what your character does, talking to other characters in game, considering your notes, making new plans, etc.

People who act like dicks (or assholes as I prefer to call them) will use all sorts of things to justify their actions. If the problem you have is someone who is acting like an asshole, you don't need to change the rules, you need to get them to stop acting like an asshole or get them to stop playing at your table. Not playing with assholes solves a lot of problems.

Originally Posted by Bren  
Once you want your imagining to be privileged over that of the others at the table you have become the problem.

And by 'problem' you mean GM  

Yes, becoming a GM is one way to exercise one's ability to create worlds.

Originally Posted by Bren  
People who are busy imagining a lot of details often, in my experience, aren't actively listening. So they miss stuff. Stuff that the other players who are paying attention do notice.
'Imagining details' isn't even in the top 10 reasons players miss stuff.

I'm unaware that there was a top 10 list. Not actively listening is one of the general reasons people don't understand what's been said, or so say the corporate training classes on communication.

The elements were defined before the players encountered them, and nothing the players could do would change that.

I would expect that players can't change defined elements of the setting. On the other hand, I would expect that their characters will be able to change some elements of the setting. You seemed to be saying something other than that, but I'm still not sure what you meant. I could guess, but it would be more efficient if you clarified.


* Because the extreme cold makes it freeze, or the natives haven't mastered fermentation, or for whatever other reason the setting has bars without beers.

** The last two sentences are sarcasm, but they aren't directed at you Anon nor are they especially relevant to the topic at hand. I just couldn't resist the sarcasm.

[estar]

...can we say for certain these people have the same idea of what 'real' is?

Tabletop RPGs are entertainment not a deep reflection of philosophy. I know where you are going with this and it is not applicable to trying to organize a group to play a tabletop RPG campaign. Especially in a face to face game where everybody is from the same geographical region sharing the same culture.

What is important is learning effective communication techniques and talking the time to learn everybody preferences. One of the better things to do during the setup of a campaign is explain how the setting fucking works from the viewpoint of their characters. Often this incorporates saying, well it works like the real world except blah, blah, and blah.

.The problem is many players assume every RPG leaves the same things uncertain, and instead of adapting or just recognizing that fact get angry and defensive about it.

The problem is lack of communication, explain what it is about and how it works in enough detail so the players can make meaningful decisions at the start of the campaign. It is that simple.

You are navel gazing trying to ponder infinite fractals. It just entertainment involving a group of people working together. If you want everybody to have a good time, just talk about it so everybody can be on the same page.

[Bedrockbrendan]

...can we say for certain these people have the same idea of what 'real' is?
.

You can sit there and quibble over this detail forever, but I think the reality is most groups arrive at a rough approximation and agreement on what they think constitute a feeling of realness in the game. If people are particularly pedantic about it and need a computer model to simulate reality at the table then there isn't much that can be done. But most are looking for a general sense that the game conforms to whatever physics they expect the setting to abide by. That is something the group figures out over time. I think the key thing is if you are using the same system and have the same GM making judgements, you do tend to end up with a fairly solid sense of a real world due to the consistency of those things (what plans are feasible might vary a bit from GM to GM depending on how 'glass half full' versus 'half empty' the person is, but as long as the same GM is int he seat, the choices reflect that person's sensibilities and it feels concrete and real enough).

[Skarg]

We play simulation style, where players are supposed to be in character and not playing from player bias, for the most part, but with occasional suggestions at player discretion, which usually aren't discussed, but may be there.

For example, players and GM's will sometimes have characters decide to do things based on what seems to lead to a more fun/interesting situation for themselves or for the players overall, rather than being strictly simulationist about it, as long as there is a plausible way to make sense of what they've decided.

If as players we want certain situations or stuff we want to play to happen, we try to insert that bias at a larger scale, such as the GM designing the setting and characters in a way that should lead to that, and players finding in-character reasons to have their PCs do things the players are interested in, that also make sense and are compelling for the PCs.

[Nexus]

...can we say for certain these people have the same idea of what 'real' is?

I've found that allot of the time when someone says realism in fiction and rpgs they often want verisimilitude, the feeling of reality and believablity that doesn't poke at their sensibilities too much but might not actually be realistic as in strictly adhering to reality.  The set up and situations in rpgs and stories are often inherently unrealistic because total realism sometimes just isn't fun or entertaining.

And reality can be pretty damn unbelievable sometimes.