Quote from: John MorrowJust as you think "[a] clean setting/character divide is a falicy", I think that the idea of clean joint control is a fallacy.

Never said it was clean, it gets messy.  But I do think it works with the reality [EDIT:that players] impact and change the setting anyway and that the definition of the setting directly impacts on the characters and the character actions.

QuoteIt would be interesting seeing your list from the other end of the table.

Took me about a day of on and off to put the post for this thread together. It'll be at least that for writing it from the GM side.

QuoteJust because a player doesn't want control of setting elements doesn't mean that they can't be plenty pro-active through their character.

The tools are there. If they don't pick them up and use them? *shrug* They just want to use the direct smacky-smacky tools? Yeah sure. But just like the Ghostbusters they still have to choose the form of their destruction. There isn't any getting around that one. This is only more egalitarian not some hippie drum-circle lovefest.

QuoteWhat if the answer isn't very specific?  I can find just about anything in a game interesting so long as it maintains verisimilitude.  Those sessions that consist of nothing but PCs bantering with each other and NPCs?  I love that stuff.

It answers specificly or it get gets the hose.

QuoteThat's one of my biggest concerns about a GM trying to cater to what they think I overtly find interesting.  It can cause them to gloss over or bypass other things that I might find just as interesting or even more interesting.

Then choose carefully to get yourself in the ballpark. Then do your thing from there and we'll adjust the course as needed. This isn't about perfection, it is about improvement over poor communication.  Besides your flexibility is good because this has to fit in with everyone else at the table.

QuoteWell, there is an important distinction between how the player controls the setting and when.  For example, controlling the setting through the agency of a character is different than controlling the setting through direct omniscient control.

I suggest that providing the regimented outlet for direct player control releives the pressure for attempting to accomplish the same via the agency of the character, AKA metagaming. Remember that middle point of my three about metagaming that you didn't quote?

QuoteWith respect to metagaming....

...another thread, another time. See you there.

Quote from: blakkieNever said it was clean, it gets messy.  But I do think it works with the reality [EDIT:that players] impact and change the setting anyway and that the definition of the setting directly impacts on the characters and the character actions.

Yes, but this leads us back to issues of how the player changes the setting and metagaming.  Just because I change the setting though my character doesn't mean that I want to bypass my character and do it directly.

Quote from: blakkieTook me about a day of on and off to put the post for this thread together. It'll be at least that for writing it from the GM side.

Well, your effort showed on the first one (which was good).

Quote from: blakkieThe tools are there. If they don't pick them up and use them? *shrug* They just want to use the direct smacky-smacky tools? Yeah sure. But just like the Ghostbusters they still have to choose the form of their destruction. There isn't any getting around that one. This is only more egalitarian not some hippie drum-circle lovefest.

Well, speaking for myself, I role-play to think in character and do things through the agency of my character.  If I'm bypassing that, I'm not doing what I really want to be doing.  It's kind of like telling someone doing a craft at a historical site to use power tools under the mistaken assumption that their only goal is to produce the item and not, in part or wholly, to experiencing the process of creating the item.  For at least some players, the process they use matters more than the results the process produces.

Quote from: blakkieIt answers specificly or it get gets the hose.

You never run in to players who have problems with those questions or do you just boot 'em?

Quote from: blakkieThen choose carefully to get yourself in the ballpark. Then do your thing from there and we'll adjust the course as needed. This isn't about perfection, it is about improvement over poor communication.  Besides your flexibility is good because this has to fit in with everyone else at the table.

Just bear in mind that good communication also depends on asking the right questions.  There are certain assumptions built in to some of the questions being suggested as good ideas that might make them a less good idea when those assumptions aren't in play.

Quote from: blakkieI suggest that providing the regimented outlet for direct player control releives the pressure for attempting to accomplish the same via the agency of the character, AKA metagaming. Remember that middle point of my three about metagaming that you didn't quote?

I think it's wrong to assume that players are trying to achieve metagame goals through the agency of their characters.

As for your middle metagaming point, I'd be curious about a more in-depth explanation of what you mean by that (or an example or two).

Quote from: blakkie...another thread, another time. See you there.

Sure.

Quote from: John MorrowYou never run in to players who have problems with those questions or do you just boot 'em?

Sure some players (and GMs) have trouble with these questions. It is a big chunk of the learning curve for BW, coming up with good Beliefs that really pop. Even Luke I think has a different insight into Beliefs now than back in 2003 when he wrote the book (you'll find some differences in BE). Depending on their past RPG experience some people just aren't used to asking or being asked these kinds of questions at all. Which is kinda sad. Getting an answer when you ask the question is tough but it is even tougher getting an answer when you don't explicitly ask the question. And then there is not even caring about answer to start with.

However people learn. That SR campaign of mine that I imported Circles and Resources into? I also used a very simplistic form of Beliefs, basically just termed it "goals". It also is much more loosely linked to rewards (Karma) because it is hard to bring the whole thing over as a firm mechanic because BITs are hooked all over the place and really need a lot of support within the rest of the rules.

But just explicitly asking the questions and a very casual like to rewards gets players thinking in terms of what they are going to do. I had a player say "my character goes out and buy ....". I ask what he's trying to do, what he's trying to accomplish. He says "my new goal to use a huge improvised explosive to blow up a building" (bless his little sociopathic hearts :rolleyes: ). So we quickly hammer out the details of how that'd work for procurment, implemention, and effect in SR4 mechanics and the setting of our game. Long-story-short is a couple of sessions later they come across a situation that one of the possible solutions calls for blowing up a building.

In the past there would have been bumps and starts and this and that and eventually it would be figured out. Maybe. This just went so much smoother. *shrug* Maybe something else was different too? I really think this change to more talking more explicitly was at the heart of it though.

Quote from: blakkieI had a player say "my character goes out and buy ....". I ask what he's trying to do, what he's trying to accomplish. He says "my new goal to use a huge improvised explosive to blow up a building" (bless his little sociopathic hearts :rolleyes: ). So we quickly hammer out the details of how that'd work for procurment, implemention, and effect in SR4 mechanics and the setting of our game.

FYI, one of the reasons why some players don't want to answer these questions is that they don't want the GM's answers to be affected by the GMs desire to see the players achieve or fail at the goal.  In other words, they do it to prevent metagaming.  Similarly, there are players who purposely don't tell the GM how wounded their characters are because they don't want the GM to feel obliged to pull punches.  Again, they are trying to prevent metagaming.

Now, sure, you can talk about those things but, as you yourself stated, metagaming is inevitable and, in my experience, if the players are purposely trying to eliminate the metagame, or as much of it as possible, then explaining what the characters are trying to do and delving into the metagame only exacerbates the problem.  In other words, talking about ultimate goals and stakes and so forth are really useful if you are trying to bring the metagame out into the open because they do that but they can be really detrimental of your goal is to hide the metagame and eliminate as much of it as possible.

Years ago, there a thread on "GM Biases" on rec.games.frp.advocacy that talked about metagame "rules" that GMs apply to in game situations that the GM thinks will make the game more fun for the players, but often make the game less fun.  Every time I've posted a selection of them since, there are people who will chime in and say that they are good GMing, and for some groups they are.  But for people who consider the metagame undesirable, they can be bad things.

Examples include "Fair Play" (if the PCs try hard, then things will work out), "Creativity Rewards" (more inventive solutions are more likely to succeed than simple solutions), "Interesting Times" (things are never easy or go as planned for PCs), "No Free Lunch" (the PCs have to earn or pay for anything good), "Appropriate Challenge" (all opponents are challenging but defeatable), "Speed is Life" (the PCs are not given time to plan or reflect), "Cruel to be Kind" (abusing the PCs and forcing them to constaintly struggle), "He Who Lives By The Sword..." (violent solutions backfire), "Nice Guys Finish Last" (no act of kindness goes unpunished), and there were others.  

One example of "Interesting Times" was a player who realized that whenever she discussed her character's plans and goal to the GM, things would never work out as planned, but if she planned and didn't tell the GM about the plan, and came up with the ideas as if they were spontaneous, they'd work as planned.  So the player simply stopped telling the GM her plans.

The problem is that once you frame a request to purchase some items as a plan to build a bomb, saying yes or no to a component is no longer about saying yes or no to the item but saying yes or no to whether the player can build a bomb.  And going back to your point that a GM should "tructure situations so [your] ability to keep character and player information separate is not taxed[,]", framing everything in terms of goals and the metagame can tax the GM's ability to keep the game world and the metagame separate, which can be bad if the players desire such a separation.

Quote from: John MorrowFYI, one of the reasons why some players don't want to answer these questions is that they don't want the GM's answers to be affected by the GMs desire to see the players achieve or fail at the goal. In other words, they do it to prevent metagaming. Similarly, there are players who purposely don't tell the GM how wounded their characters are because they don't want the GM to feel obliged to pull punches. Again, they are trying to prevent metagaming.

Sure, because they've had it beaten into them from years of getting screwed over by GMs rigging success or failure.  But with time they can unlearn and then learn they aren't going to get arbitrarily screwed or made a charity case by GM Fiat. That it's safe to go for it.  I didn't emphasis the fostering of feeling "safe" in that list much because I don't need it so much, I've just said "screw it" and gone for it anyway. However it is in that list for the encouraging of others to follow me.

Can you see how that Weathersong example fits into that? A very basic and core principle in BW is that if the player succeeds at a roll good things come from it, if they fail bad things come from it. If the GM still dictated unfavourable weather the player has succeeded at that roll but still be screwed.

What about the other method, where the GM does a second random roll on a chart to determine the weather?  Well there the answer is "second random roll". Why? Don't keep rolling dice till you get the answer your want. The dice already gave an answer, the player succeeded, don't screw them over.

And if they failed the roll? No coddling, something bad happens. In fact the very bad thing they likely already knew could happen before they rolled.

For the kicker the player helps set the Obstacle too and determine what the good and the bad is. They get a fair shake. They by-in-large live or the die, succeed or fail on their and their character's own merits and choices.

QuoteThe problem is that once you frame a request to purchase some items as a plan to build a bomb, saying yes or no to a component is no longer about saying yes or no to the item but saying yes or no to whether the player can build a bomb.  

That isn't the problem. That is why it works. Because then we can talk about the mechanics of how to attempt to do it.  I don't sit there and try to cockblock him.**  He doesn't try to weasle his way around and end up getting cockblocked because he did a bunch of stuff that didn't fit with the joint understanding of the setting.  I also didn't purposely provide him with a building to blow up and didn't just hand him the materials. We just agreed upon the extension of the game mechanics to handle the situation before it came up (well mostly, he didn't have all the details but that's his own fault he skipped a couple sessions to hang out with his new GF ). Which means it wasn't a total spur of the moment rule decision. Allowing him to plan. Allowing me to plan.


EDIT: I will also say that that SR campaign is only part of the way there. The decisions about Thresholds are NOT as well supported in the SR4 rules as Obstacles are in BW. There are some skills like Assensing that are, but most aren't. The game is also written very much GM Fiat centric, that's its comfort zone and I haven't been able to push it as far as I'd like.

** Because it is against the rules. Well not specific SR ones, the partial imported rules. Hanging the label "goal" on it tells me it is important to the player. It puts it right in my face. No pussyfooting around. No pathological mind games. Now if I don't make an honest effort to work the goal into the setting or I agree to the "goal" but don't provide the opportunity to attempt it? I'm breaking the rules and yes we're screwed. We were screwed right from the beginning because we've got someone at the table that isn't playing by the rules.

Leave it up to planning, skill, and luck.

Many years ago a lady by the name of Lisa Padol ran a rather variant Call of Cthulhu campaign that was known as Cthulhupunk. (Predated the SJG effort and was an "inspiration" for same.) Cthulhupunk had a recurring villain the PCs kept trying to bump off, and failing. Until one day...

As one player noted after her demise, "Well sometimes a plan actually works."

Quote from: blakkieIt is a list of what to expect and suggested practices based on a generalization of myself and my observations of other players I've come across, written in first person form.

I agree with most of the content -- the tone was a little off ("I can scheme deeper than you" seems like the "challenge" you're so quick to read into GM decisions).

Did you *intend* those statements as a challenge?

I was a bit confused by the dislike of world history... I can get not wanting a huge history tome, but why would you not want the GM to own the state-of-the-world?  I see world-def and world-state as primary value-adds for a GM... and except in extreme cases ("You live in a world where you have no free will") I don't see those things as affecting proactivity.

And what, specifically, did you mean by "don't treat world definition as canon" --  how would that apply to traditional games like D&D where PC's have no formal authority to define world-state?

Are you asking for input? Or are you asking that the GM share authority?

Cheers,
-E.

Most of Dwight's comments seem pretty common sense, don't they?

Don't be a jerk to the other players. Incorporate suggestions graciously. Be involved and participate -- don't just sit there and selfishly expect to be entertained.

Sound advice, and probably the way most folks play. But unless those conditions are designed into the game, they can be ignored and abused.

But once they are recognized, these tricks of trade can be expanded upon and used to greater effect.

For example, canon setting is dangerous because it limits player participation and suggestions. Rigid canon can produce lots of "No, it's not like that" from the GM or, even worse, lengthy explanations of "how it is."

Such behavior is unnecessary and, in fact, counter to the way RPGs have always and will always be played. Players have always had a hand in setting creation and manipulation. How many times have you, as a player, said, "We find an inn and put up for the night."? That's setting creation.

"I have a drink at the inn." That's setting creation.

It's unlikely that the GM has every inn in every city mapped (though it happens). But as soon as you suggest one, there's now an inn. Bam: setting.

Every action that you take with your player character creates setting. Why? Because there is no world beyond the players sitting at the table. No matter what RPG you're playing, it is the players who jointly create the world via their interactions. If you never ask for an inn, there's no inn. It's not important, and no system resources are wasted on it.

Recognizing this puts power in your hands. Is it power to always win? Is it power to always get what you want? Hell NO!. That's a straw man and has nothing to do with this discussion. It is the power to focus your play time into something that you find enjoyable, more enjoyable than you would otherwise, trying to search for the cool bits.

The GM's authority is to then take those focused goals and challenge them -- fight over them with you. Getting what you want every time is boring. Fighting for what you want, fighting about what you think it important, is dramatic and cool.

It's a back and forth that's existed since the first RPGs and still exists today. Some games simply seek to make it explicit, while others bury it or ignore, rendering it implicit.

-L

Quote from: blakkieCan you see how that Weathersong example fits into that? A very basic and core principle in BW is that if the player succeeds at a roll good things come from it, if they fail bad things come from it. If the GM still dictated unfavourable weather the player has succeeded at that roll but still be screwed.

While I don't have the book (something I'll probably correct when I get the money), I think I can get the gist of the example from your text and I'm going to answer based on that.

Quote from: blakkieWhat about the other method, where the GM does a second random roll on a chart to determine the weather?  Well there the answer is "second random roll". Why? Don't keep rolling dice till you get the answer your want. The dice already gave an answer, the player succeeded, don't screw them over.

While it can be used to "get the answer you want", that's not the only reason to use multiple rolls, and I think this points to different philosophies about what the players are doing.  For at least some role-players, I think the idea is that the mechanics and rolls correspond to specific things happening in the game setting.

Thus a roll to research a fact in a library represents the character's ability to find whatever is there and a roll to see what kind of information the library contains is a roll to establish a fact about the setting -- how well stocked the library is.  You could combine the two together into a single roll, but then you lose information that the two rolls provide.  

For example, if a player fails their research roll but a roll determines that the library has the information, if the characters go back and look again, I know that the information is there.  Similarly, if the character succeeds at their research roll but another roll suggests that the library doesn't contain the info they were looking for, then I know that's why they failed.  In order to find the information they need, the information both has to be there and they have to find it.

To me, skill rolls represent a character's performance in doing the skill, and not every failure is the result of poor character performance.  If I loose my keys, I may do a great job of searching a room but still not find them because they just aren't there for me to find.  That differs from viewing skill rolls as an indication of whether a character succeeds or fails at what they are trying to do.  As a result, "nothing happens" results don't bother me because "nothing happens" happens means that for that passage of time, "nothing happens", which seems quite normal to me.

Quote from: blakkieAnd if they failed the roll? No coddling, something bad happens. In fact the very bad thing they likely already knew could happen before they rolled.

Again, it depends on what you want the rolls to represent,  In the real world, sometimes someone does everything wrong and it still turns out OK for them.  Take William Hung's singing, for example.

Quote from: blakkieThat isn't the problem. That is why it works. Because then we can talk about the mechanics of how to attempt to do it.

And whether he can do it or not is determined by?  A die roll?  I do, of course, think that's the best way to reduce GM bias in those situations.

Quote from: luke (sort of)"We find an inn and put up for the night."?

"Well, actually..." says the GM, "You run across a gentleman who notices your plight, and offers a place you can stay. In return for news of the places you've been, and doing some chores around the house.

"Oh, and escorting a shipment a few blocks to a warehouse. Just in case of bandits.

"The lack of inns in this town has become rather obvious by now."

"The fuck? No inns? You're full of shit! Choo-choo, man!"

Quote from: -E.I agree with most of the content -- the tone was a little off ("I can scheme deeper than you" seems like the "challenge" you're so quick to read into GM decisions).

Did you *intend* those statements as a challenge?

"....due to your commitments to other players". The GM has many things to concern themselves, with [usually] multiple players to keep track of. This isn't a matter of a challenge, simply a reminder of the reality of the situation that I've seen, from both ends of the table, play out over and over and over. The GM that somehow thinks their superior intellect can foresee what all the players are going to do or try to do? Even in the occational case that the former is actually true, and not just wishful thinking, the later usually does not bear out. Especially in the case of players that are focused on making things happen.

The rest of your post I think Luke covered.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile it can be used to "get the answer you want", that's not the only reason to use multiple rolls, and I think this points to different philosophies about what the players are doing.  For at least some role-players, I think the idea is that the mechanics and rolls correspond to specific things happening in the game setting.

Thus a roll to research a fact in a library represents the character's ability to find whatever is there and a roll to see what kind of information the library contains is a roll to establish a fact about the setting -- how well stocked the library is.  You could combine the two together into a single roll, but then you lose information that the two rolls provide.

But all that fits into one player rolled test.  The library is a really good one? It improves the odds of finding it. The library is a really bad one? Makes it much lower chance they'll find it.  I specifically used the word "test" BTW because you'll find that in cases like your example often in BW this is represented by something called a Linked Test.  You first roll to see how good a library you find and then those results feed directly into how many dice you get for searching the library.  Or you might have a completely separate test (say Resources to purchase entry to the library) or even a full out adventure to locate and gain access to the library. It is all a matter of how important the conflict of locating a library is to the game you want to play.

It is all a matter defining the world through the perspective of the PCs. Afterall the PCs are the center of the game, right? Everything is relative to them.

EDIT: See, I wasn't just being a dick to David R. in that other thread, I really had a point. I generally think a good deal of his opinions and I don't mind saying that I did a triple check before calling bullshit rather than the double check most people get. It really is a lot like creating a small random generation table specific to the situation and then using the character's skill for modifying the die roll on that table. To put this into D20 terms for the Weathersong example you'd have something like, and I'm just tossing out numbers here:

d20+Knowledge(Weather) | Visibility Conditions
-----------------------+----------------------
1-13                   | Moonlit night
14+                    | Foggy

If it wasn't a coastal city but one where where you'd not expect this kind of climate, or if they had been under a tight timeline (they weren't)? Then maybe it'd be more like 1-16 and 17+ for the categories. Or it was in a land-locked desert city with no large bodies of water? Then everyone else would throw dice/cheetos/pencils at the player till he withdrew his silly suggestion.  Well maybe not that harsh a reaction but it'd be a longshot roll to make it and it'd be his resposibility to give the ingame rational/explaination and sell it to everyone at the table before he rolled. Or I might suggest instead of fog it be a duststorm or something like that that reduced visibility. Because reduced visibility is what he is really after in this case (AKA "intent").

QuoteAnd whether he can do it or not is determined by?  A die roll?  I do, of course, think that's the best way to reduce GM bias in those situations.

Ding! So then we don't have a situation where I'm conciously or subconciously yanking his chain (as you described that woman experiencing). There is a clear set of requires for the character and rough list of the risks and potential problems. We also aren't discusssing what the rules are actually going to be with a bunch of tasks he's already completed towards the goal hanging over our discussions. Because that can lead to a lot of fustration and hard feelings as he gets entrenched to protect his effort and I feel like I'm being coerced into agreeing to something.

P.S.  In this case it was a security check by Knight Errant against his Fake ID, that he had to buy some appropriate permits for, that he used to purchase the supplies. Success by KE would have resulted in some sort of interogation and/or gunfight, depending on how many hits over the Threshold they rolled.  The check for building the bomb itself was a pretty straightforward Explosives test, that part was never really at issue.

Quote from: droog"The fuck? No inns? You're full of shit! Choo-choo, man!"

"That night the men of Teloth lodged the stranger in a stable, and in the morning an archon came to him and told him to go to the shop of Athok the cobbler, and be apprenticed to him.

'But I am Iranon, a singer of songs,' he said, 'and have no heart for the cobbler's trade.'

'All in Teloth must toil,' replied the archon, 'for that is the law ... Go thou then to Athok the cobbler or be gone out of the city by sunset. All here must serve, and song is folly.'"

And I'd imagine that they wouldn't be much more lenient towards wandering adventurers, either.

At this point I personally would be doing a quick check of the Beliefs to figure out WTF the existance/non-existance of this god damn inn is so important. :ponder: Why does it matter? What conflict does it serve? I ask them why they want an inn? To sleep for the night? Does one of the PCs have a Belief about not roughing it out under the stars or something? ((EDIT: GrimGent's post is an excellent example of a tie-in if there is a Belief like "The carefree life of a wandering minstral is for me".)) If I'm coming up empty then I say "sure, you find an inn" because otherwise it is getting in the way of why we showed up at the table.

Going back to that example AP the characters were prefabs out of the back of the book. Initially the Dwarf had one that said "I swore an Oath to my father that I would earn an honest living." But in setting up the adventure every player cut one Belief and that was the Dwarf's.  So when it came time to put their ship boarding plan into motion I asked "Where do you get the rowboat from?"  "We steal it." I looked around at the Beliefs and the players. I didn't see any particular tie-in for Beliefs nor did I see any players reaching for dice or expanding on where or how they were stealing the boat. So I made one of those executive GM decisions. They steal a boat. They have a boat! Done and done. Afterall the game was about the conflict with Eberhard, Pirate Slaver. They are still doing the sneaky-sneaky rolls anyway but any consequences for failure are going to center around Eberhard. The Beliefs said so!

EDIT:  If in the future details of where they got the boat or such became important and we didn't agree upon the details we could dice for it then. Because we left it indeterminent we can backfill in those details without retconning.