Quote from: David RFor instance, in your ghoul bodyguard example, I would not tell them, that the guard would not be able to stop a bomb (even if this was the case). During play they would discover this themselves.

But, for instance, would your players be surprised if they tried the bombing and it was stopped by the elite team of sorcerors who always follow the prince around, and who are perfectly visible (though discreet), but who were never mentioned because nobody asked?

In most games I've run or played in, people would feel dissatisfied with that.  And yet, I've seen that kind of thing happen in little ways because folks have to think to ask the right positive questions ("Does the prince have a team of sorcerors protecting him?") in order to get information that, honestly, their characters would notice and factor in without having to think about it.

Quote from: droogThe point is that this 'playstyle' thing isn't even defined. Any playstyle is nothing more than an accumulation of techniques.

Actually I do think it's defined. Now, I'm not into theory so whatever I say is based on what I've observed with other gaming groups I've come into contact with. A trad playstyle has certain elements. I know this sounds simple but from what I've observed, trad gamers more or less follow this pattern. The GM creates the setting. The players create and control their characters. The GM handles everything else except the characters the players create.

Now, of course there are some variations to this theme, but on the whole, this is the GM/player dynamic or what I would term trad gaming. Please remeber I'm clueless when it comes to jargon and theory, so I may be simplfying the situation.

I have observed that online discourse seems to be preocupied with blurring the bounderies between different styles of play. Now, of course even though I consider myself a very trad GM I'm sure others don't think so. I'm also aware that my groups playstyle changes depending on the kind of game we are playing.

So, yeah I understand your point about techniques, but I have to say, that there are some established (IME) rules so to speak that define a trad playstyle as I'm sure there are techniques that define other kinds of styles.

As for your example, do I think it's trad? No, I don't think so, but I'm sure you have a big reveal up your sleave.... (although I have done something like this before in my games)

QuoteOriginally posted by TonyLB

In most games I've run or played in, people would feel dissatisfied with that. And yet, I've seen that kind of thing happen in little ways because folks have to think to ask the right positive questions ("Does the prince have a team of sorcerors protecting him?") in order to get information that, honestly, their characters would notice and factor in without having to think about it.

I'm really having trouble understanding this part Tony. To my players at least asking the right questions or at least what their characters think are the right questions is what rpgs are all about. Like I said, I may be misreading your post entirely.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAs for your example, do I think it's trad? No, I don't think so, but I'm sure you have a big reveal up your sleeve.... (although I have done something like this before in my games)

Well, yes. I played the game in 1995, based on an account of a game first played by Greg Stafford in the late 70s. This was years before I got online and saw people talking about 'traditional' games. This really isn't an issue of Theory.

QuoteThe GM creates the setting. The players create and control their characters. The GM handles everything else except the characters the players create.

See, again, way back when I was trying out techniques like getting people to play NPCs, players were contributing bits to setting, making their own interpretations etc. How do you account for this?

Quote from: droogSee, again, way back when I was trying out techniques like getting people to play NPCs, players were contributing bits to setting, making their own interpretations etc. How do you account for this?

So, some of us do things differently (maybe we have always done things differently). How does this detract from the fact that more gamers out there are playing in a trad way?

I mean are you sayin' that my observations are wrong ? They could be.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSo, some of us do things differently (maybe we have always done things differently). How does this detract from the fact that more gamers out there are playing in a trad way?

I mean are you sayin' that my observations are wrong ? It could be.

I'm just saying that the real picture is more muddled, and this Kulturkrieg seems to have given it a false solidity. Experimental stuff has been with us a long time. There have always been variations between groups.

Look at us – you say you do some things differently. I say I do some things differently. My thesis is that, as blakkie said, 'trad' is not quite so neat a category as some people would have it.

Quote from: droogI'm just saying that the real picture is more muddled, and this Kulturkrieg seems to have given it a false solidity. Experimental stuff has been with us a long time. There have always been variations between groups.

Look at us – you say you do some things differently. I say I do some things differently. My thesis is that, as blakkie said, 'trad' is not quite so neat a category as some people would have it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative droog. I understand what you are saying. But experience leads me to believe that trad gaming  in the case of most gamers is a very neat category. Like I said, I've met more folks who game more or less the same way than gamers who do things differently. This would (IMO) explain the popularity of certain games.

Regards,
David R

Whew.  So, regarding my essay and the term "pro-activity".  

As I was writing it, I was defining pro-activity in terms of the player characters.  That means that they take actions without being directly goaded.  For example, you might have a GMless superhero game where the players invent villains to throw at each other's PCs.  This still has reactive player characters, because they're only responding to what the villains do.  

A lot of the discussion is about stuff that has nothing to with what I called proactivity in the essay.  For example, blakkie's example of divination magic in post #28 doesn't seem to have anything to do with proactivity.  From the start it assumes that the PCs have a goal to take the ship and the only question is how they resolve their attempt.

To me, the question of proactivity starts much earlier.  Why are they after what is on the ship?  How did they decide on that course of action?  

Quote from: BalbinusI saw this essay on John Kim's site
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html

And got to thinking, currently I think my play is mostly alternating proactive in his terminology or proactive with the occasional prod.

So, 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?

I'll put in a brief plug here for Jonathan Walton's journal PUSH, Volume 1, which has an extended essay on setting up backgrounds with immersive, proactive play in mind.  

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(...detailed background example...)

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.

Interesting.  Can you give some more detailed examples about how this works in practice, Elliot?  In my experience, without something concrete to riff off of, players are rarely quick to take action.  Offhand, I don't think I've ever seen a game work like this.  I think TonyLB mentioned something similar in a recent Story Games thread as the "Tyranny of the Blank Slate". I'd buy there are ways around it, but I'm not sure how they work.

Set Up: A Wererat gang is filching from rice shipments down on the docks.

Reactive: "Gee fellows, that sounds odd. What say we go investigate?"

Proactive: "That's interesting. Anybody want to go and see who's playing at the Gleeful Ogre tonight?"

Quote from: Elliot WilenAt 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.

I think the thread is basically a corpse, but in case...

Ok, the point with players not having direct input into the setting is that I enjoy discovering the setting through play, I enjoy the experience of exploring a world and I enjoy the feeling that the world has some kind of independent existence capable of discovery and experience.

This is true when I play, and when I GM I enjoy the players doing those things.

Accordingly, direct player creation of world details detracts from my fun, both as a GM and equally as a player.

What I am interested in, is tools that help encourage proactive play from players who are operating within a GM created world.  That doesn't mean I think coauthored worlds are bad, or that coauthored play is wrong, it just means that I do think coauthored play is a different thing and a different thing which frankly is not particularly closely related to the subject matter of this thread.

But I think a degree of deliberate obtuseness and frankly agenda pushing has killed this thread most likely.

I mean, for fuck's sake (and this is not directed at Elliott) can we not have a discussion on practical tools to use in a game with a GM creating the world and with players experiencing it through their characters without discussing indie gaming?  Indie gaming is great, but it doesn't have to be in every sodding thread.

Quote from: BalbinusBut I think a degree of deliberate obtuseness and frankly agenda pushing has killed this thread most likely.

I mean, for fuck's sake (and this is not directed at Elliott) can we not have a discussion on practical tools to use in a game with a GM creating the world and with players experiencing it through their characters without discussing indie gaming?  Indie gaming is great, but it doesn't have to be in every sodding thread.

My whole point was that these sorts of tools are found in all sorts of places, like Greg Stafford's game from Wyrm's Footnotes, or an ancient JTAS, or (OMG) Burning Wheel. I wasn't discussing indie gaming per se. I was discussing practical tools as you asked for.

If somebody argues with me, why not argue back? I thought I had some good points and I argued for them. I'm a bit sick of this stupid dividing line marked trad over here and indie over here and never the twain shall meet. I thought your earlier reply to blakkie indicated that you thought the same thing. Guess I was wrong.

Definitions of "Trad" seem to have nothing in common except for the extreme of "we play exactly like Diablo, only with a GM instead of a computer", while definitions of "indie" don't have even that.

So I don't think anyone can really say that they only play "trad" or "indie", or that there's this huge abyss between them. droog is absolutely right to be talking about techniques in play in this way.

Unless, of course, they make up their own trad/indie definitions, but then that's just like saying, "Bob likes Type A games, and Jim likes Type B games." It doesn't really contribute much to the discussion...

Quote from: droogMy whole point was that these sorts of tools are found in all sorts of places, like Greg Stafford's game from Wyrm's Footnotes, or an ancient JTAS, or (OMG) Burning Wheel. I wasn't discussing indie gaming per se. I was discussing practical tools as you asked for.

If somebody argues with me, why not argue back? I thought I had some good points and I argued for them. I'm a bit sick of this stupid dividing line marked trad over here and indie over here and never the twain shall meet. I thought your earlier reply to blakkie indicated that you thought the same thing. Guess I was wrong.

I wasn't thinking of you droog, I'm afraid I rather glossed over your posts while skimming through the David R/Blakkie/others debate which had rather made me lose interest.  I'll go back and check your points out.

Generally I do think the indie/trad thing stupid btw, but I did think ages back in the thread it was made fairly clear that the discussion wasn't about coauthored games such as say Mortal Coil and blakkie really did keep flogging that particular horse.

Edit:  Actually, looking over the thread I don't know if it was blakkie (whose divination thing is quite cool) or whoever, but I am struggling to see much by way of practical advice.  Mostly I'm seeing a theory debate and a lot of back and forth, I'm struggling a bit on the stuff I could apply in a game here.

It just gets frustrating you know?  I had what seemed a fairly straightforward query, and I now have a debate about trad and indie gaming, a distinction I do view as largely invalid.

Quote from: BalbinusI wasn't thinking of you droog, I'm afraid I rather glossed over your posts while skimming through the David R/Blakkie/others debate which had rather made me lose interest.  I'll go back and check your points out.

Sorry for derailing your thread, Balbinus. I didn't mean to turn this into a trad/indie playstyle discussion. I started out trying to describe something and just lost the plot.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSorry for derailing your thread, Balbinus. I didn't mean to turn this into a trad/indie playstyle discussion. I started out trying to describe something and just lost the plot.

Regards,
David R

I don't think you did David, I think blakkie was a bit slow in catching on that we were discussing different stuff and didn't make it terribly clear initially how his posts related to it, and then the whole thread went into the standard indie/trad debate which lies in wait for innocent threads, pulling them down like gazelles pounced upon by lions, so as to rip out their tasty innards.

I view the whole thing as an object lesson in the dangers of theory, and indeed of lions.

I've been thinking about this a bit as I'd really like to get a player-led game going. My preferred systems are Classic Trav, Burning Wheel (using Harn as a setting) and HeroQuest. I could be talked into D&D using the Green Ronin Medieval Players' Handbook, but I'm a bit burned out on D&D.

Anyhow, here's what I've been thinking about:

1. Offering a Variety: You need to get player buy-in. It's not like the more normal (at least in my group) situation where we go "Oh, it's Garry's turn to GM, what have you got Garry? Oh, a dungeon, well, okay..." I think you need to get the players excited and keen to go along with you, so negotiating what is you will play is quite important. "What would you guys like to play?" rather than "I'd like to run this."

2. Setting: These are all setting-heavy games, so what's been said about a detailed setting is, I think, absolutely true. I think you could sit around and make up a setting together, but using a setting you can all broadly agree on removes a bit of heavy lifting, IMO.

3. Everyone on the same page: I have a number ideas for each of these games/settings, but I'm just using them as a way to get conversation going. The basic situation ("We're mercenaries! We're traders! We're a travelling circus!") should be a shared creation. Players must make characters that fit each other. (This is basic stuff, of course, I have no doubt that many of you guys do this already. With us it's more of a "My guy's a paladin." "Yeah? My guy's a chaotic evil cleric of the pain god." "So, what are we doing together again?" "Um, don't talk about it, dude.")

4. The PC are the bit that the NPCs react to. This is the tricky bit, I think. Around the same time as you are generating the PCs you need to find the compelling plot thing. My instincts are to tie them all together either against a NPC (basically a vengance plot) or as part of an enterprise (expanding a tribe/business/royal familie's influence. In some ways, the PCs take on the traditional role of the NPC antagonist: they are the ones invading the other land, they are the ones trying to take over the world or drive some guy out of business. I think this is the vital and tricky part: finding a goal that they can work towards, otherwise it turns into the usual old wotsit.

5. Provide real progress to the goal as the game goes on. I've played in lots of games with PCs goals where it's really just dangled as a way to keep shit moving but never gets close to being resolved. Eventually, the PCs will achieve their goal and you will either have to change the direction of the campaign or stop. I think stopping is the best idea.

6. Recognise that some people just want to throw dice and kill shit. In my group at least. Let the people who want to lead the story do so, but don't try and force it on the others. I have made this mistake before.

That's it at the mo. Real-life keeps getting in the way but I'm getting there, slowly. At least I have three interested players - now I just need to find the time!

Ned