Quote from: blakkieBullshit.  He doesn't know everything. Random encounter tables.

Blakkie:  Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?  Or are you trying to find value and insight by examining other people's viewpoints?

I'll tell you that, from the outside, the answer to which one you're achieving seems awfully damn clear.  But I'm interested to know what you were intending.

I suggest ignoring Blakkie, at least in this thread.

Quote from: TonyLBBlakkie:  Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?  Or are you trying to find value and insight by examining other people's viewpoints?

The later, I'm really coming up empty on what the issue is. What is the ultimate goal, for players to make up their own adventure? Seriously, "trad" gaming includes the pervue of random tables, right? One might even throw that under the category of "old school"? In those cases the GM doesn't know.  Now the GM, in any case of the rules that I know of outside of chargen, rolls the dice. But does it really matter that much to you who rolls the freakin' dice?

It is like worrying about whether you are using prerolled numbers from a fixed list or rolling the numbers at the point at which they are needed. If you fixate on it sure you can blow up the difference in your mind. But when push comes to shove the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

QuoteI'll tell you that, from the outside, the answer to which one you're achieving seems awfully damn clear.  But I'm interested to know what you were intending.

*shrug*  I get the impression that David is really hung up on this idea of some arbitrary, and somewhat contradictory, taxonomy a "trad" game. He didn't follow the "trad" setting generation, which I thought was a pretty cool example.....outside of that he then changed the tune about proactivity for the "main" plot thread.  Did it remain the "main" thread? Did David push hard for it to remain? Was it just an unspoken assumption with everyone that it was to be the main thread?  (and don't feel I'm sitting in judgement there whatever those answers)

Going back to the SR campaign I thought up a main plot thread based on input from the players. Apparently though I didn't listen hard enough (actually I think what happened is I gave it too much scary vibe for them to chase it). Because by the end of the second session it was no longer even in contention for the main plot thread.  Which is where the proactivity comes in. They had totally driven and blown up some other minor thing and were quite literally creating that path, with some serious input from me of course.  However I don't really even think of that campaign as being primarily proactive.

That's kind of a hard judgement to make though as things get a bit muddy because eventually even with the most proactive players you start getting a bouncing back and forth between who is reacting to whom. Which I think is much cooler than always proactive. Because the GM isn't some handmaiden, she's got some ideas too! Some damn cool ideas I bet.

---

I'm also trying to give my insight, as a longtime, extremely proactive player, on what kinds of things in rules and GM execution help me and what I've seen help other players make things happen. Because that's what proactive players are, they are people that take their characters and march them into somewhere where nothing much is happening and make shit happen! They build things, they destroy things, they manufacture kings, and they bring countries down. And the game ends up revolving around this player created stuff with any initial GM provided stuff as backdrop at most. For the sole reason that the players and GM find this new jointly created stuff is compelling fun and totally Metal.

On that last part, I guess I need to talk more about limiting players too. Because of this effect I've seen people mention where you get lowest common denominator settings when you start taking everyone's input. You end up with Nazis ignoring MDC damage. Which is fine if you want gonzo, and lots of people do and that's fun, but not so fine when you weren't aiming for gonzo.

Once again back to the Weathersong and the shmuck with the metagame powers of a god. By making this metagaming power part of the character you set a rough limit on a player's input to whatever they can muster in this manner under the character creation and progression process.

Quote from: blakkie*shrug*  I get the impression that David is really hung up on this idea of some arbitrary, and somewhat contradictory, taxonomy a "trad" game.

Well, you give the impression that what you really want is to pick apart anything David says in order to show that he's wrong.

He's entirely right:  The default assumption in many games is that the GM knows everything that is going on, because anything he makes up is truth.  The GM is the gatekeeper of knowledge, and anything the other players want to "discover" they must discover through him.

That's a valid and important point.  When you immediately respond "Bullshit ... Random encounter tables," you are nitpicking.  Frankly, I think that if you were looking for insight, rather than arguing for argument's sake, that nitpick wouldn't even occur to you.

The sad thing, from my point of view, is that I generally approve of a lot of the play-style that you seem to personally enjoy.  But I am appalled by the ham-fisted, close-minded negativity that you are shovelling out to people who enjoy different styles.

Quote from: David RIn a trad game, the GM is the keeper of knowledge. He knows all. So, the question is (still) how does one, encourage proactive play within this dynamic.

When I'm playing, I find myself thwarted by how impossible it is to prove a negative ("There's no reason I know of that I couldn't successfully firebomb the prince") by asking positive questions ("Does he have bodyguards?  Does he have helicopters circling?")

So when I'm GMing, I try to make it clear to people that they can ask questions for which they hope the answer is "No," and I won't make up a "Yes" just in order to feel creative.  "Is there any reason we know of that we couldn't firebomb the prince?"  "Hrm ... well, there's that one ghoul body-guard, but he can't really stop a bomb ... well, golly, I guess there isn't any reason you know of!"

Anyone else use this kind of technique explicitly?

Quote from: David RWhich is why I believe an improv style of play is the best way to encourage proactive play...but this works only for some players.

I don't know about "best", but for some senses of "proactive" I certainly see that improv can encourage proactivity.

I think we may be running into another layer of difference in the way people might approach RPGs, though. A great deal has to do with how the player's expectations mesh with the GM's sense of responsibility. I can think of two examples that work, and one example that doesn't.

One example that works: the GM prepares a detailed map of the PC's environment, including notes on the strength and goals of factions and important NPCs. The GM conceives of this as a sort of dynamic model which will "run" with or without intervention on the part of the PC. The player then uses the PC to explore the model, investigate the interactions of its parts, and then, increasingly, master it and control its operation so that it produces outcomes that the player/PC desires. All information-gathering and manipulation of the model by the player is done through the agency of the character.

Another example that works: the player constructs the PC along with some vision of the way the PC will interact with the game-world. The GM doesn't prepare a detailed map at all, but instead improvises ad-hoc facts and descriptions to respond to the PC's investigations and actions. The GM takes notes to ensure that the improv is internally consistent, but is otherwise expected to "respond" to the PC in a manner that assumes the PC is always at least a minimally competent decision-maker, per the player's vision. That is, the "ability to break the status quo", one of the requirements set forth by John Kim, is taken as a given, and the "well-defined background" is generated in play, completely in service to that requirement. Basically this form of play can be served by several types of GM improvisation (aside from simply narrating PC success). One is to offer only obstacles which the PC has a fair chance of overcoming; another is to limit outcomes to those which allow the PC to "continue". Essentially the GM improv should not invalidate PC initiatives by turning them into bad risks with unacceptable downsides.

Now for the example that doesn't work, namely, trying to mix the above two. Take a player who expects to be presented with a world that operates as a pre-existing dynamic model, and pair that player with a GM who basically validates every PC decision as strategically sound, and the player will feel jerked around and lose interest. Conversely if you take a player who has a vision of their character which they require to have validated through play, and stick them with a GM whose model of the game world includes objectively right & wrong ways of moving through it, the player will feel blocked and be uninterested in the strategic manipulation needed to successfully impact the course of play.

It seems to me that John K., Balbinus, Sett, and I are most interested in the "dynamic model" approach and strategic manipulation. Which actually means that John's article presupposes the idea of the game world as a pre-existing reality, and is really about ways to reconcile that particular esthetic with the desire for proactivity, which can be separated as concept and used in other ways, too.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's a valid and important point.  When you immediately respond "Bullshit ... Random encounter tables," you are nitpicking.  Frankly, I think that if you were looking for insight, rather than arguing for argument's sake, that nitpick wouldn't even occur to you.

Nitpicking? :confused: It is very literally and in spirit that the GM doesn't know until the roll is made.  They don't conciously pick the contents of the world, they leave that up to some other party (combination of the author of the table and the dice).  The knowledge is elsewhere, the GM in a very real and tangible way doesn't know. Not every session or game that might get the "trad" label might have it but it is still prevalent.

The gist is that "trad" covers a extremely wide path. . There is random gen and also pre-fab determination that's set up like that supplement where you roam across a hex map and there is the look-up table of the map coords that tells you what monster you . If the GM chooses not to look at it you once again have a third-party as the keeper of the knowledge.

Now it is rare for using purely random gen and third-party secrecy but I'm not talking about pure GM not knowing either.

QuoteThe sad thing, from my point of view, is that I generally approve of a lot of the play-style that you seem to personally enjoy.  But I am appalled by the ham-fisted, close-minded negativity that you are shovelling out to people who enjoy different styles.

David seemed to be me telling me my points didn't belong because I wasn't talking in the "trad" sense (and if not I'm not sure why this "trad" thing came up?). When in fact his example wasn't "trad" either. Yet I am talking about players choosing adventures by having characters going off and making something happen instead of reacting to some aberation that is presented to them.

I'm speaking directly to the OP question of "what kind of games suit themselves to proactive player characters and what kind of things can the GM best do to help the players get there?"

.... as a proactive player.

I get what you're saying, blakkie. What you're seeing is reaction – this idea that games are divided in some hard-and-fast way into 'trad' and 'non-trad' has polarised people.

No, what we're seeing is a very common problem in online RPG discussion, where someone explicitly or implicitly defines a term for the sake of a given discussion, and then somebody else starts quibbling with the term instead of addressing the concept it's being used to describe.

It's very plain that John K., and Balbinus in turn, are interested in developing methods of encouraging PC proactivity in games where players engage in minimal use  of out-of-character resources, and the game world is being run on a model which is mechanically indifferent to the players' moment-to-moment desires.

Quoting B's original post:

QuoteSo, let's brainstorm, what kind of games suit themselves to proactive player characters and what kind of things can the GM best do to help the players get there?

What does all this mean you may be wondering, well, I'm channelling my inner Forge-ite tonight - go read the essay

BTW, Blakkie asks what is the benefit of the latter approach. One benefit is that it creates an opportunity for meaningful strategic thought, for those interested in pure challenge. Another is that it provides a strong sense of context and weight for moral decisions within the world. So, e.g., the complex ramifications of a given decision have causal linkages within the fiction instead of being obvious products of arbitrary metagame judgments.

However, if you don't understand the benefit, I suggest that this thread is not for you.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, if you don't understand the benefit, I suggest that this thread is not for you.

We understand! But that base has been covered. My point is that the polarisation has progressed to the point where alternative approaches are instantly dismissed without proper evaluation.

For instance, if you roll Circles in BW, the outcome is still subject to causal linkages within the fiction, to borrow your phrase. I can't have a spaceship show up just because I rolled well.

Let's say that in a more conventional set-up, I want to find out whether I possess a contact in this town. Either the GM has prepared an exhaustive list of every inhabitant, or he makes a spot evaluation and rolls for it, or he simply makes a decision. None of those approaches necessarily break what you're talking about, and neither does rolling the chr's Circles ability.

Quote from: BalbinusEdit:  Oh, let's tie this to actual game prep, I don't want a theoretical discussion, I'm interested in directly applying this to the next game I run or at least the one after that.

At this point I'm remembering an old post I came across on rec.games.board the other day, where a particularly egregious wanker by the name of Patrick Carroll explained how others could keep him out of threads. And the answer was: discuss a specific game.

Max, I leave it up to you whether Blakkie or anyone else is offering anything of use to your next game run. If not maybe you can provide a better picture of what your game will be.

Quote from: droogWe understand! But that base has been covered. My point is that the polarisation has progressed to the point where alternative approaches are instantly dismissed without proper evaluation.

I don't think that's what was going on earlier, but with understanding established we can certainly move on.

QuoteFor instance, if you roll Circles in BW, the outcome is still subject to causal linkages within the fiction, to borrow your phrase. I can't have a spaceship show up just because I rolled well.

Let's say that in a more conventional set-up, I want to find out whether I possess a contact in this town. Either the GM has prepared an exhaustive list of every inhabitant, or he makes a spot evaluation and rolls for it, or he simply makes a decision. None of those approaches necessarily break what you're talking about, and neither does rolling the chr's Circles ability.

Circles are actually one of those things that in my opinion are extremely well suited to "traditional play" (at least what we're calling that for the sake of this thread). Streamlined mechanics like that are one reason why I encouraged Settembrini in his Burning Empires thread.

Circles are defined in terms of the PC's relation to the game world at the moment the PC is created. There are a set of impartial guidelines on their use, related to the type of person being sought. It's taken as a given that the GM hasn't detailed everyone in the world. The existence of this particular trait, however, provides an abstract model for impartially establishing both the existence and the availability (to that PC) of a certain person, at a given moment in time.

This is different from the example Blakkie gave of using divination to effect a certain type of weather on a given day, even if he modifies the target number depending on the local climate. Suppose we grant that the GM doesn't ordinarily plan the weather or have a handy mechanic for generating it. If divination "really" allows you to predict the weather on a given night, the chance of having fog can't be dependent on the skill of the diviner. Now, if you change things slightly, so that the PCs can choose the night of the attack, then using divination to select a foggy night no longer violates the concept of an external game-world. But that option depends on whether there are other pressures which affect the time frame.