Quote from: Bill White;418235misunderstands...glib...idiocy...anti-intellectualism...knuckle-draggers...knee-jerk One True Wayists...brag, bluster, and bombast

Whew, I thought you were going to go all Forge Elitist on us for a second there.

Quote from: Bill White;418235Arguably, this is more immersive than a situation in which everything you thought you knew about the world had to be verbally confirmed by someone else.

If you would take Ron Edward's poor persecuted bat penis out of your mouth and/or ass for a minute and think, you'd realize what a ridiculous statement that is.  Considering you were talking about twisting things around, I almost thought you were giving a descriptive example of irony.

A good GM running a good World in Motion campaign will give the PCs information about the world in a way that they can decide for themselves their attitudes about the world, religions, politics, people, etc...  As to whether they are right or not, they'll have to experience the world to verify their hypothesis, you know - kind of like real life.  Hmm, almost seems like we're trying to consistently emulate a setting, for the purposes of immersion.
Whoda thunk it?

Successful immersion in an emulated world is based on my skill at role-playing my character, not my personal skills at creative world-editing.  There's a word for games that do depend on that, they're called storygames.

Quote from: Bill White;418235So couldn't that emulative goal thus be obtained by a circumstance in which PCs were allowed to make world-constituting statements as long as it was understood that (a) anything that contradicted an already established fact would be regarded as an attempted lie, and (b) the GM reserved the right to reveal then or later that the PC was mistaken? Arguably, this is more immersive than a situation in which everything you thought you knew about the world had to be verbally confirmed by someone else.

I throw that out as a real question, suspecting however that the knee-jerk One True Wayists here will posture and preen with their characteristic brag, bluster, and bombast. God, I love it here.

My answer would be no. One of the things I like most about playing RPGs is the sense of discovery and exploration I get from exploring someone else's world. When I'm playing I don't want to create world details. Oh, and for someone who's condemning of the tone around here you sure are condescending yourself. You come across as if you're some elitist who's just slumming for awhile until you get bored. Perhaps you should be a little more concerned about your own attitude and less about taking everyone else to task for theirs.

Quote from: Bill White;418235So couldn't that emulative goal thus be obtained by a circumstance in which PCs were allowed to make world-constituting statements as long as it was understood that (a) anything that contradicted an already established fact would be regarded as an attempted lie, and (b) the GM reserved the right to reveal then or later that the PC was mistaken? Arguably, this is more immersive than a situation in which everything you thought you knew about the world had to be verbally confirmed by someone else.

Huh. Shared narrative authority as a pathway to more immersive play. That is an interesting way to look at it; standing the dominant internet-fight paradigm on its head, as it were.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418246Successful immersion in an emulated world is based on my skill at role-playing my character, not my personal skills at creative world-editing.  

I see the distinction you're making there, but -- even if we pretend that its broadly applicable to all games and gamers -- when you step back and look at it, it's not necessarily a useful one.  My wife would probably characterize them as being two aspects of the same thing.  People inventing stuff within the framework of a game; creating fiction on-the-spot and sharing it with one another.

Which kind of brings us back to the idea of the distribution of narrative authority in role-playing games as being a set of points along a continuum, from game to game and group to group, rather than this nonsensical binary thing of "story games" and "honest, God-fearing, American role-playing games".

Quote from: BWA;418218Rifts is a great example. I have played me some Rifts. At one point, Palladium was my favorite system. So, were I to go around knocking it, I would at least be on solid ground.

However, what if someone had only criticisms of Rifts, an endless, vitriolic stream of them. And you said "Hey, dude, what gives?" and it turned out that he'd never played it. Would you give his opinion a little less credence? I sure would.

No, see, the issue is not "Have you played x"? The issue is whether or not what you're saying is actually untrue about X.  So again, what part of the specific statements about these games are you claiming are not actually true?
Or are you just taking this tactic because in fact there's no way to actually win your argument based on the facts?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Bill White;418235So couldn't that emulative goal thus be obtained by a circumstance in which PCs were allowed to make world-constituting statements as long as it was understood that (a) anything that contradicted an already established fact would be regarded as an attempted lie, and (b) the GM reserved the right to reveal then or later that the PC was mistaken? Arguably, this is more immersive than a situation in which everything you thought you knew about the world had to be verbally confirmed by someone else.

I throw that out as a real question, suspecting however that the knee-jerk One True Wayists here will posture and preen with their characteristic brag, bluster, and bombast. God, I love it here.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand Immersion at all.  Either that, or is really divorced from reality.
Because you see, in our experience of reality, you don't get to say "suddenly, the universe is like this!" and then have it happen.

Thus, in an RPG that's meant to encourage immersion, you can't suddenly decide to change the universe around you in ways your PC would have no power to do. It inevitably breaks all sense of immersion the second you do it.

And that is why the GM-Player division of powers is so important, you cunt.

RPGpundit

Quote from: TristramEvans;418195Some of that, I think, comes from a naive attempt to create "new" or "unique" mechanics.

That's not the word I would use... In creating new or unique mechanics, extensive background research should be conducted prior to releasing new game mechanics to ensure that the mechanics haven't already been tried and failed. In addition, the new mechanics should be thoroughly playtested included a playtest group without any vested interest in the final success of the game prior to being released as new mechanics.

The word I would use is lazy or sloppy design.

Quote from: TristramEvans;418195That said...
These are really such abstract complaints that I'm not sure what to make of them. I mean, D&D could be said to promote "morally ambiguous goals and values", with it's reward system based on how many living creatures you murder. Shadowrun is certainly "morally ambiguous". Most games actually, outside of the superhero genre, tend to at least leave morality up to the preferences of the gaming group. And only glorifying heinous activity? I assume you're referencing games like FATAL and that Racial Holy War thing, but what about a game like Call of Cthulhu? Or Unknown Armies?

concerning the last point...I have a hard time even concieving of a game like this. Any specific examples?

I have two that comes to mind almost immediately. One is an RPG, and the other is a LARP I observed being run at a gaming convention four or five years back. In both cases the game encouraged and rewarded extreme discriminatory practices on the part of the players. Random castigation as entertainment used to be pretty much limited to religious wars and inquisitions. I was dismayed to see it in practice in gaming.

Finally, concerning morally ambiguous and heinous activity. Being an adult, you should already know what that is, so I would answer your question with a few more questions.

There are plenty of downsides for playing in this manner, however ignoring the moral message such games automatically send by virtue of simply encouraging this type of play, suppose for a few minutes that one would consider allowing heinous activity on the part of the players. Let's also suppose that moral ambiguity is equally rewarded in play, and the players are provided awards and honors for successfully acomplishing both activities during the course of the game.

1) How does this make the game any better than what is already available?

and...

2) What new benefits does such a game provide the players that they did not have already?

Quote from: CRKrueger;418246Whew, I thought you were going to go all Forge Elitist on us for a second there.

If you would take Ron Edward's poor persecuted bat penis out of your mouth and/or ass for a minute and think, you'd realize what a ridiculous statement that is.  Considering you were talking about twisting things around, I almost thought you were giving a descriptive example of irony.

Shut the fuck up, cuntface. Grown-ups are talking.

QuoteSuccessful immersion in an emulated world is based on my skill at role-playing my character, not my personal skills at creative world-editing.  There's a word for games that do depend on that, they're called storygames.

Blah, blah, blah. I have no idea what you're talking about. Let's get concrete.

Imagine that play begins right here. The action involves a single PC, a musketeer-type courtier who's a fair hand with the rapier and has cut a swath through the Queen's ladies-in-waiting.

GM: "You are at an exquisite feast in the court of the King. Suddenly, guards burst in--"

PC: "I draw my sword!"

GM: "Your hand closes upon an empty scabbard! To dine with the King, you had to surrender your blade."

PC: "I grab a wine bottle from the table and hurl it at the guard!"

Two sets of questions:

(1) When the GM says "...you had to surrender your blade," is he playing the world or the character? If you were the PC in this case, would you protest or go with it? Would you accuse the GM of railroading you? What if he told you he was setting the world in motion, that he was just giving you information about how the world worked? Would you make him go back to the point where you were required to surrender your blade, and then refuse to go to the feast?

(2) If you were the GM, would you forbid the PC from just saying that there's a wine bottle for him to grab, on the grounds that it's a detail that should be under your control rather than his? Would you require the player to ask you, "Is there a wine bottle on the table?" Or would you regard the existence of a wine bottle as a plausible elaboration of your introduction of the "exquisite feast" earlier in the scene, and let it go? Or, would you use this as an opportunity to reveal further "setting detail," reminding the PC that in this country, alcohol is forbidden near the King for powerful symbolic reasons. Would you invent such a detail on the spot in order to mess with the player, or would you require yourself to have previously established that fact in your "world notes"?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;418244It certainly does contradict it. Edwards makes plain in that essay and many other places that when he says "many" gamers aren't having fun, he actually means "most". And even if you think you were having fun, well really you weren't. You're brain-damaged, your perceptions of "good gaming" are warped by your early bad experiences, like the perceptions of "good sex" are warped by early sexual abuse - his analogy, not mine.

I'm re-reading the Edwards essay I think you're talking about and I think you're guilty of reading tendentiously. It seems pretty clear to me that whatever else Edwards is doing, he's trying to describe a particular problem he's observed and delimiting it pretty carefully. The existence of irony notwithstanding, most people try to use the words that mean what they're trying to say. Of course, no one can control what others read into them.

Put the Edwards quote you pulled out back into its original context and see what I mean:

   The tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is. I have met dozens, perhaps over a hundred, very experienced role-players with this profile: a limited repertoire of games behind him and extremely defensive and turtle-like play tactics. Ask for a character background, and he resists, or if he gives you one, he never makes use of it or responds to cues about it. Ask for actions - he hunkers down and does nothing unless there's a totally unambiguous lead to follow or a foe to fight. His universal responses include "My guy doesn't want to," and, "I say nothing."

I have not, in over twenty years of role-playing, ever seen such a person have a good time role-playing. I have seen a lot of groups founder due to the presence of one such participant. Yet they really want to play. They prepare characters or settings, organize groups, and are bitterly disappointed with each fizzled attempt. They spend a lot of money on RPGs with lots of supplements and full-page ads in gaming magazines. . . . They are simultaneously devoted to and miserable in their hobby.

I read this as pretty straightforward--either you recognize yourself or your experience in this description or you don't. If not, then what are you squawking about? But to argue that this language right here is code for "most gamers are not having fun" strikes me as bizarre. Now you might say, oh, but elsewhere Edwards calls traditional gamers nasty names. But so the fuck what? Personally, I don't regard the brain-damage shit as having anything to do with the Big Model, which is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about "Forge theory." By the same token, I don't regard all that "swine" shit as having anything to do with the emulation-first model that gets all the action around here, even while people pretend they're not talking "theory."

QuoteBecause any theory of how game sessions work has to account for the good ones and bad ones both. You can't understand disease unless you understand how the healthy body functions. He specifically excludes all happy gamers from his theory, saying,

   "The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience."

That is, GNS is a theory about unhappy gaming experiences. It is thus necessarily incomplete. Incoherent, we should say.

This is horseshit, probably knowingly so. The Big Model has an account of "functional" or "happy" gaming experiences--it says they're the product of compatible (not even necessarily shared) "Creative Agendas" on the part of the play group. From the same essay:

   These role-players [who play defensively or who play with those who do] are GNS casualties. . . . They are the victims of incoherent game designs and groups that have not focused their intentions enough
 
Pretty clearly, Edwards is suggesting that successful play is a product of coherent game design and focused group play intentions. You can say that it's wrong, but you can't say that it's incomplete. Also, you can't really say that it's monocausal, at least not in good faith.

QuoteHumanism takes account of, you know, humans and stuff. Whereas Uncle Ronny says,

   "Ask them, "Why do you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."

"Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not the topic at hand.) "

Humans are parenthetical in GNS. Anyone who's played through or even watched a single session knows that the "wholly social" issues are of dominating importance. This player makes us laugh, that player has good tactical sense, this other player always brings beer, still another player is a bit weird and disturbing with some of the stuff they say - these are the things that make or break game groups.

Again, I think you're being tendentious. Those quotes don't on their face mean what you want them to mean. Sure, people role-play to have fun, but people have fun doing lots of different things. The question that the sentences you quote seem to me to be trying to address is what is it about role-playing in and of itself that makes it worth doing, rather than something else. If you want to have fun, why aren't you out playing Magic or Twister or Super Mario Galaxy, all of which are fun games but none of which involve role-playing?

Ironically, in emphasizing the social aspects as paramount--what I think of as the table-level stuff--you leave yourself open to the charge that you're ignoring the in-game aspects (you know, the fictional world in which role-players like to be immersed), which I can't believe you're really suggesting doesn't matter much at all.

But, reading more closely, I see what you're really saying is that the social level aspects determine the fate of game groups. Sure. But I'd argue that that table-level stuff is often mediated through or expressed via the in-game fiction-level stuff, which if role-playing matters at all has to contribute in some way to the character of the social interactions that determine the success or failure--function or dysfunction--of the gaming group.

QuoteI'm happy for an rpg theory to be humanistic. I'm happy for it to be scientific. GNS is neither.

Here we agree. I said it would be better understood as a humanistic theory--an ideology of practice--but thus far I'm not aware of anyone articulating it as such.

Quote from: RPGPundit;418258Spoken like someone who doesn't understand Immersion at all.  Either that, or is really divorced from reality.
Because you see, in our experience of reality, you don't get to say "suddenly, the universe is like this!" and then have it happen.

Thus, in an RPG that's meant to encourage immersion, you can't suddenly decide to change the universe around you in ways your PC would have no power to do. It inevitably breaks all sense of immersion the second you do it.

And that is why the GM-Player division of powers is so important, you cunt.

RPGpundit

You're the one who doesn't understand immersion. Also, you're a cunt.

Quote from: BWA;418069The primary purpose of an RPG is not to be read, or discussed on the internet, it is to be played, right? So when someone tells me all the things they think about Game X, a big question for me is "Have you ever actually played that game?". If the answer is "No, but here are my opinions on it anyway" then I'm simply less inclined to take their opinions seriously.

Since you are seriously stuck on this point, I'm going to take a stab at addressing it.  

There are a lot of people who base their opinions about Game X on what the designers and those who have played the game say about the game.  Depending on the depth of the sources, the information gleaned from the comments of others can range from the superficial to quite specific.  While some skepticism is certainly warranted from superficial impressions, it's a lot more difficult to justify when the opinions are based on detailed comments by players or even the designers and perhaps a read-through of the rules.  And even when the opinion is based on a superficial understanding of the work, it may still be perfectly valid.  And it is in the details that one finds clues to the validity of an opinion.

For example, a person who says that they know they'd hate a movie based on the trailer may be totally misunderstanding what the movie is about because the trailer is a relatively superficial view of the movie and the movie may be totally different than what the person expects.  But the trailer may also contain enough information for the person to be certain that they'd hate the movie.

The other night, my wife walked in while I was watching The Walking Dead.  She said she'd never heard of it.  I told her it was a gory zombie show and she wouldn't like it, and she agreed.  Why?  Because it doesn't matter how strong the characters are, how beautifully directed and shot the scenes are, how interesting the story lines are, and so on because the blood and gore and horror are not something my wife enjoys and can overlook any more than most people could overlook a dog turd in a batch of otherwise wonderful pan of brownies to take a bite.  She doesn't need to read a detailed review or watch an episode to know that she doesn't like it and it would be foolish for me to insist that she watch an episode before passing judgement on it.

Similarly, if you've tasted broccoli or spinach or any other vegetable and know that you hate the taste of it, you don't need to know the detailed ingredients or take a bite of a dish that's full of the stuff to know that you won't like it.  If you are allergic to peanuts or shellfish or some other food, you don't need to try a new food to know that it will make you sick if you know it contains the thing that makes you sick.  Sometimes, the very presence of a single thing that a person doesn't like will spoil anything that it's in and a person will know that without trying the whole thing.

In many cases, the reaction against things like Forge games or D&D 4e or WFRP 3e is precisely because the designers and reviewers and people who have played it have said that it's chock full of things that people don't like.  The designers have, for all intents and purposes, purposely baked a dog turd in with the brownies for those people and bragged about it and that's enough reason for people to not even give it a try.

It's not uncommon for the newly converted to believe that they are the first to think of some of these ideas and that nobody could have experience with them.  I've played games that involved the player thinking like an author or a GM.  Heck, the very first role-playing games that I played lacked a GM and resembled the GMless play that I engaged in with friends toy cars and action figures because nobody wanted to GM.  I've played games with Fudge points, without dice, and so on and know what I do and don't like about various techniques.  When a designer and advocates tell me that their game is going to force me to think like an author and make me make the sort of decisions I have absolutely no interest in making and which I know, from experience, will spoil what I enjoy out of a game, then masochism is the only reason I can think of to give such a game a try.  

I've tried broccoli.  I don't like it.  And I have every reason to be certain that I'm not going to like a dish packed with the stuff and billed as "The Ultimate Broccoli-Lovers Dream".  And I don't need some self-styled net.mommy telling me to eat my broccoli because it's good for me or try it again because I might just like it this time.

Quote from: BWA;418069At some point, if you haven't played, say, Dogs in the Vineyard, but you always have something to say about it on the internet, then you're not really talking about the actual game, you're just talking about the cloud of internet jabber that clings to it. Which I guess is it's own real thing, in a way, but it's not what most of us are about, hopefully.

When what the person says directly reflects or even quotes those who designed a game and have played it, then either the designer and players are lying or the person understands exactly what they are saying.  Plenty of people critical of Forge and "story games" as well as D&D 4e and WFRP 3e can back up their opinions with quotes from the designers and players.  If those who have designed the game and/or those who play the game say things that support what a person critical of the game is saying, then why is their conclusion invalid simply because the information isn't first-hand?

Quote from: Sigmund;418249My answer would be no. One of the things I like most about playing RPGs is the sense of discovery and exploration I get from exploring someone else's world. When I'm playing I don't want to create world details. Oh, and for someone who's condemning of the tone around here you sure are condescending yourself. You come across as if you're some elitist who's just slumming for awhile until you get bored. Perhaps you should be a little more concerned about your own attitude and less about taking everyone else to task for theirs.

I'm not condemning the tone around here. I'm reveling in it. All my cussing and carrying on is just sheer exuberance; I'm not sitting around worrying about folks being Wrong On the Internet. I said I like it here and I do. But if you're trying to tell me that we're all supposed to be nice to each other around here, rather than being free to engage in no-holds-barred, two-fisted Internet disputation, I'm going to be disappointed.

You answered my question seriously, though, and that deserves a serious reply. You mention that one of the things that you enjoy about role-playing is the sense of discovery you get from exploring someone else's world, and you feel that that would be diminished were you to create world details. That's absolutely fair--but it occurs to me that there are details and then there are details. What I mean is, there are obviously big, consequential, world-level details about how things work or what's going on--e.g., the Dark Lord forged a Ring, there's only one way to destroy it--and just as obviously there are little details that when introduced contribute to one's sense that one is becoming more familiar with a "real place," even if those details are not in and of themselves consequential in a larger sense--e.g., the Elven word for this "waybread" of theirs is lembas.

Now, what if there was a player whose character was an Elf, and every so often the player of that character responded to the GM's descriptions of where you were and what was going on around you by saying something like, "In the tongue of the Elves, moonsilver is called mithril" (if you find a moonsilver knife, for example--something relevant to play). Wouldn't that be pretty cool? The player is given a little bit of authority over something that's intimately connected to his character, and in using it helps provide those little immersion-enhancing details for other players.

Now, the obvious response is that it's necessary to preserve immersion for players to have only one role, that of their limited-POV character. And I can see that as a really powerful technique in many instances. But human beings "switch frames" all the time--they enact multiple roles and perspectives in their interactions with each other, fully occupying each one while at the same time capable of moving among them as needed to keep a social interaction moving. So it's not clear to me that this role-unity is really strictly necessary; I can see the sort of thing I'm describing as being able to enhance immersion, in the sense of being engaged with a coherent and consistent alternate world.

Quote from: BWA;418250I see the distinction you're making there, but -- even if we pretend that its broadly applicable to all games and gamers -- when you step back and look at it, it's not necessarily a useful one.  My wife would probably characterize them as being two aspects of the same thing.  People inventing stuff within the framework of a game; creating fiction on-the-spot and sharing it with one another.

No, they aren't the same thing at all for many people.  When I "immerse" (and that word has become all but useless), I am thinking in character (as opposed to thinking about my character).  I don't invent stuff or create fiction in any meaningful sense.  I honestly don't care if I share it with others during play.  And I have no interest in controlling things that my character cannot control.  

My character can decide to swing a sword at an enemy but my character can't decide whether it hits or not.  My character can decide to jump a chasm but can't decide whether they land safely on the other side or not.  Thus I'm fine with a system that expects me to decide if my character swings his sword at someone or tries to jump a chasm but I'm not fine with a system that demands I decide whether my sword swing hits or not or whether my character successfully jumps the chasm or not.  Such a system demands I make decisions that I have absolutely no interest in making.  

Even as a GM, I tend to decide a great deal with random rolls because I often have no real preference for where the game goes or how things resolve.  I'm not playing to create something.  I'm playing for the experience while it happens.

You can try to describe a roller-coast ride as creating something or frame it as travel from one location to another but thinking and talking about a roller-coaster ride in those terms would be to miss the whole point, which is the experience and sensation of doing it.  I role-play for the ride, not the destination.  

Quote from: BWA;418250Which kind of brings us back to the idea of the distribution of narrative authority in role-playing games as being a set of points along a continuum, from game to game and group to group, rather than this nonsensical binary thing of "story games" and "honest, God-fearing, American role-playing games".

I DO NOT WANT NARRATIVE AUTHORITY.

What makes you think I do?  What makes you think most players do?  

The problem with many "story games" is that they do not make narrative authority optional, and once you demand that a player engage in narrative control of the game, you are playing a type of game that makes certain styles of play difficult if not impossible for many.  A lot of things in traditional games were optional, by which I mean that it is entirely possible to play and enjoy the game while ignoring them.  And the complaint that a "story game" makes narrative control mandatory is not unlike the complaint that certain systems make the use of a hex or grid map mandatory.

Quote from: Bill White;418263Blah, blah, blah. I have no idea what you're talking about. Let's get concrete.

Imagine that play begins right here. The action involves a single PC, a musketeer-type courtier who's a fair hand with the rapier and has cut a swath through the Queen's ladies-in-waiting.

GM: "You are at an exquisite feast in the court of the King. Suddenly, guards burst in--"

PC: "I draw my sword!"

GM: "Your hand closes upon an empty scabbard! To dine with the King, you had to surrender your blade."

PC: "I grab a wine bottle from the table and hurl it at the guard!"

Two sets of questions:

(1) When the GM says "...you had to surrender your blade," is he playing the world or the character? If you were the PC in this case, would you protest or go with it? Would you accuse the GM of railroading you? What if he told you he was setting the world in motion, that he was just giving you information about how the world worked? Would you make him go back to the point where you were required to surrender your blade, and then refuse to go to the feast?

(2) If you were the GM, would you forbid the PC from just saying that there's a wine bottle for him to grab, on the grounds that it's a detail that should be under your control rather than his? Would you require the player to ask you, "Is there a wine bottle on the table?" Or would you regard the existence of a wine bottle as a plausible elaboration of your introduction of the "exquisite feast" earlier in the scene, and let it go? Or, would you use this as an opportunity to reveal further "setting detail," reminding the PC that in this country, alcohol is forbidden near the King for powerful symbolic reasons. Would you invent such a detail on the spot in order to mess with the player, or would you require yourself to have previously established that fact in your "world notes"?

 

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but since you smugly told CRKruegar to "Shut the fuck up" in your little arrogant tirade where you basically reinforce the negative stereotype of the "Forge elitist" that others have tried to dispel, I thought I'd answer your questions.

(1) I don't recall any GM of mine making calls like this. When we were required to surrender our weapons to attend a function we would be told up front, giving us the opportunity to comply, balk, or even circumvent by attempting to sneak weapons in. Why would a GM make this call later? That would completely eliminate a chance for roleplaying and PC actions such as the aforementioned weapon sneaking, as well as possible spell-casting, scouting of corruptible guards/servants, etc... Wasted opportunity is what I would call that.

(2) If it got to this point, I might make them roll for the chance, or hell just give it to the PC at this point since I would have fucked up by not making the weaponless condition clear up front.

I see though that what you're trying to do is manipulate an answer that will allow you to shout "Aha, you're editing the narrative here and see we already knew this you guys are so stupid blah blah.... " All I see is you folks trying to fix something that for us isn't broken. Sorry if it is for you but that's probably not any of our faults so suck it the fuck up and either actually play some fucking games with nice people you can get along with or find something else to do. I'd wager you and your fancy jargon and shitty attitude aren't going to find much traction around here.

Quote from: John Morrow;418271I role-play for the ride, not the destination.  

I'm with you 100% JM, and I'm totally sigging this quote.

Quote from: Bill White;418270Now, what if there was a player whose character was an Elf, and every so often the player of that character responded to the GM's descriptions of where you were and what was going on around you by saying something like, "In the tongue of the Elves, moonsilver is called mithril" (if you find a moonsilver knife, for example--something relevant to play). Wouldn't that be pretty cool?  The player is given a little bit of authority over something that's intimately connected to his character, and in using it helps provide those little immersion-enhancing details for other players.

The problem occurs when a game demands that the players make such narrative decisions to make the game work.  It's one thing for a restaurant to offer some cheese at the salad bar and quite another to be handed a menu where every dish contains cheese and be told that it's not optional and I have to eat it.

Quote from: Bill White;418270Now, the obvious response is that it's necessary to preserve immersion for players to have only one role, that of their limited-POV character. And I can see that as a really powerful technique in many instances. But human beings "switch frames" all the time--they enact multiple roles and perspectives in their interactions with each other, fully occupying each one while at the same time capable of moving among them as needed to keep a social interaction moving. So it's not clear to me that this role-unity is really strictly necessary; I can see the sort of thing I'm describing as being able to enhance immersion, in the sense of being engaged with a coherent and consistent alternate world.

Can I "switch frames"?  Sure.  Do I want to?  No.  Thinking in character is the frame that I want to engage the game from.  Leaving that frame for various reasons is unavoidable (from having to resolve an attack role with game mechanics to being asked to pass the Cheetos) but I want it minimized, not maximized.  Do I listen to the radio?  Yes.  Do I want someone turning on a radio and playing it loudly while I'm watching a movie in the theater?  Of course not.  Could I still watch the movie?  Yes.  But it's going to be a much less pleasant experience.

(ADDED: I'm reminded of this SNL skit.)

Quote from: Bill White;418263GM: "You are at an exquisite feast in the court of the King. Suddenly, guards burst in--"
PC: "I draw my sword!"
GM: "Your hand closes upon an empty scabbard! To dine with the King, you had to surrender your blade."
PC: "I grab a wine bottle from the table and hurl it at the guard!"

A World in Motion campaign doesn't kick off in the middle of a scene using the literary device In Media Res. You're starting from the same shaky foundation as Edwards himself - namely you don't really get how Simulationism works.

Quote from: Bill White;418263When the GM says "...you had to surrender your blade," is he playing the world or the character?

Bad premise.  A GM who tells you after the fact that your character did something isn't concerned with setting coherency, he's trying to make the scene more dramatic, or have higher stakes, etc...

Quote from: Bill White;418263If you were the PC in this case, would you protest or go with it? Would you accuse the GM of railroading you? What if he told you he was setting the world in motion, that he was just giving you information about how the world worked? Would you make him go back to the point where you were required to surrender your blade, and then refuse to go to the feast?

Again, same problem, bad premise.  This is based on Nar not Sim.

Quote from: Bill White;418263If you were the GM, would you forbid the PC from just saying that there's a wine bottle for him to grab, on the grounds that it's a detail that should be under your control rather than his? Would you require the player to ask you, "Is there a wine bottle on the table?" Or would you regard the existence of a wine bottle as a plausible elaboration of your introduction of the "exquisite feast" earlier in the scene, and let it go?

Assuming that at an "exquisite feast" there would be knives, forks, wine bottles, etc... is part and parcel of World in Motion emulation.  

Quote from: Bill White;418263Or, would you use this as an opportunity to reveal further "setting detail," reminding the PC that in this country, alcohol is forbidden near the King for powerful symbolic reasons. Would you invent such a detail on the spot in order to mess with the player, or would you require yourself to have previously established that fact in your "world notes"?

If the setting is sufficiently divergent from say medieval times that alcohol would not be allowed at a feast, then my players would already know that, or I'm a lousy GM.  World in Motion GMs don't toss world-altering "complications" on players just to fuck with them, again, that's a Nar thing, going for the more interesting story.  Minor details are created on the fly all the time, that's the GM's job.