TheRPGSite

Most players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

Often, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.  Hell, many of my players get a bit flustered at having to name their character; they sure as hell don't want to have to create a 5-page story background for him, or have to then create plot hooks for the campaign centered on him.  They want the GM to do those things for them, if anyone does.

The few really successful ways to get players to give the level of commitment required to flesh out their characters and inject him into the world are by trying to make them as simple as possible, with questionairres that have short yes/no or one-phrase answers, etc.

All this is because, in the end, your average player is a player and not a GM because either doesn't feel like he has the commitment or the creativity to do what a GM does. He wants to play, have a good time, and not have to do all the work that is involved with being a GM.

RPGPundit

that's been my experience as well.  although most players will eventually come up with a good name on their own, just give them time.  otherwise, the "choose one NOW" results in names like "hee-bob" or "hugh g. rection" and the like.  

even the players who ref would rather just play instead of coming up with additional details.  the extra work would go towards the games they run, instead.  

this also comes with getting older and having less free time, methinks.  gaming should be fun, not homework.

I've had players really cotton to 'player empowerment,' using their new abilities to the hilt, and I've had players turtle up at the mere notion of it. In my experience the ratio of lovers to haters has hovered right around 50%. Then again, I haven't found many casual players over the age of, say, 18 to 22. All but a handful of the veteran gamers I know also GM from time to time.

I'd agree that the number of players willing to seize player empowerment goes WAY down when stuff like 5 page character backgrounds are involved. Of course, I can't think of a single RPG insane enough to attempt to require such a thing. I'd also say that long backgrounds have somewhere between jack and shit to do with player empowerment.

Was this inspired by the thread on RPGnet? Because I agree with you 100 per cent.

The more I think about, the more I've come to believe that most of the impetus for non-traditional RPGs is from GMs who are deeply frustrated that the folks they play with aren't as committed to the game as they are. It's the GMs who want the backstory and sophisticated motivations, so they have material to work with on their hobby of writing RPG stuff (and then talking about it on the internet).

The problem is that these unhappy souls turn around and disparage GMs who have functional groups. On RPGNet, they've managed to play up the myth of the domineering GM who refuses to share power into a menacing bogeyman.

What they really want is to play with a bunch of obsessive super-gamers like themselves, so they invent games that would cater to just those implausible groups. Then they talk about those games, and how cool they would be, while shitting on traditional play and castigating both the GMs and players who have fun with it.

Because in my experience, RPG groups typically consist of one or two very motivated and creative players, a bunch of more casual players. And that's a dynamic that works pretty well for most people. But for the people who it doesn't work for, who cannot stop stressing about what play might be like with a bunch of players as keen as himself, chatting on the internet about player empowerment and shared-authoring games is the only outlet for the frustrations.

Quote from: RPGPunditMost players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

It's not so much a matter of resentment as lack of interest in it, unless the "empowerment" becomes mandatory.  Then it becomes resentment.  Mandatory
"empowerment" isn't.

Quote from: RPGPunditMost players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

There's your argument right there.  Empower the "regular role".  Don't give the "regular role" extra powers, but don't undermine the options available to the role, either (and we've all known GMs who've done that).

QuoteOften, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.

Now, that's a problem in my book.  If I'm putting out my all as GM for their entertainment, I expect the players to put forth some effort in their "regular role".  If they resent that expectation, I don't want to GM for them.

See where this is going?  The whole issue of "empowerment" revolves around expectation of the kind of game you intend to play.  Some games expect some creative input from everyone playing, not just reactive dice rolling.  Other games are just fine with the mechanical approach to the game rules, and are uncomfortable with the theatrical aspects of roleplaying.

So, play the game the way you want to.  If you don't like the way your group plays, try to find (or found) a new group.

!i!

Quote from: HaffrungThe more I think about, the more I've come to believe that most of the impetus for non-traditional RPGs is from GMs who are deeply frustrated that the folks they play with aren't as committed to the game as they are. It's the GMs who want the backstory and sophisticated motivations, so they have material to work with on their hobby of writing RPG stuff (and then talking about it on the internet).

Trying to do GM stuff while playing the game is like trying to watch a movie with the director's commentary turned on.  Yeah, it can be interesting but it makes it darned difficult to just enjoy the movie.  I'd much rather talk about the nuts and bolts of the session after I've played it, much like I prefer to listen to the director's commentary after I've watched the movie.

Quote from: HaffrungThe problem is that these unhappy souls turn around and disparage GMs who have functional groups. On RPGNet, they've managed to play up the myth of the domineering GM who refuses to share power into a menacing bogeyman.

For those GMs out there, when I ask you if something is in the room, I don't expect you to "Say yes or roll the dice".  I expect you to tell me if that thing exists in the room or not and "No" is a perfectly valid response.

Quote from: HaffrungBecause in my experience, RPG groups typically consist of one or two very motivated and creative players, a bunch of more casual players. And that's a dynamic that works pretty well for most people. But for the people who it doesn't work for, who cannot stop stressing about what play might be like with a bunch of players as keen as himself, chatting on the internet about player empowerment and shared-authoring games is the only outlet for the frustrations.

Some GMs enjoy entertaining their players so running a game for a group of casual players is great fun for them.  Other GMs need the players to entertain them back.  Those GMs get very annoyed if the players don't provide that entertainment for them.

Hmmm.....

There are actually several different ideas being flung around here at once.  

(Insert appropriate zebra <- hyena image)

I find usually (95%) that players who have long complicated backgrounds and etc. want to be the "star of the show".  They're attention-whoring.

As far as "player empowerment", I agree with the comment about "director's commentary".  I don't want to hear a lot of shit about how something is done, I just want to watch.

As far as "players giving back" -- when I'm GMing, I expect my players to be present and focused.  No, they don't have to put in hours of out-of-game time.  But be on time, get your ass to the table, pay attention, and make reasonable decisions for your character.

And think.  Surprise me.  Come up with the 101st way to get inside the Imperial base when I have 100 defensive measures in place.

"most of the impetus for non-traditional RPGs is from GMs who are deeply frustrated that the folks they play with aren't as committed to the game as they are. It's the GMs who want the backstory and sophisticated motivations, so they have material to work with on their hobby of writing RPG stuff (and then talking about it on the internet)."

Ding.  Winner.

That, plus Ron Edwards had a D&D GM who was a dickhead and never got over it.  "Show us on this doll where the bad GM touched your character."

Quote from: John MorrowSome GMs enjoy entertaining their players so running a game for a group of casual players is great fun for them.  Other GMs need the players to entertain them back.  Those GMs get very annoyed if the players don't provide that entertainment for them.

No doubt. But my impression is a lot of GMs who need the players to entertain them haven't found a group that suits their needs. Instead, they enthuse over idealistic power-sharing games, while hurling accusations of abuse on DMs who are fine with their groups.

Quote from: RPGPunditMost players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

Often, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.  Hell, many of my players get a bit flustered at having to name their character;

I beg your pardon?

Now to the topic.
IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion), empowerment should be WON or DEVELOPED in-game. I'm much more of a player than a GM, and a much better one, and I've never needed a 5-pages background story. Bloody hell, I usually need just about 20' of gaming to flesh out a character. In my experience, not only

Quote from: Old Geezerplayers who have long complicated backgrounds and etc. want to be the "star of the show". They're attention-whoring.

but they also just lay down quietly on their backgrounds and can't or won't let their characters grow. Most of the time they're not even good players. And that blows.
And as a GM, I'd much rather have a player who, upon seeing an orc patrol, shouts "My name is Oskar Thunderfart, you killed my father, prepare to die", than the bloke who just mumbles "I fly into rage", because he stated into his background that an orc patrol had killed his daddy, but won't even say it out loud.

I agree with most everything said here and wish to subscribe to this newsletter.

I've basically ran into three kinds of players in my 20+ years of gaming:

1. The Casual Player
The casual player rarely, if ever, owns anything RPG-related - maybe not even dice.  They don't particularly care what their character's name is and never come up with a background.  They don't have much of a character concept and are usually happy playing whatever.  They usually play a similar personality regardless of which character/game they are playing.

Some people find these players annoying because of their lack of "investment" into the game, but I love them.  All they care about is getting together and having fun.


2. The Semi-Casual Player
The semi-casual player owns at least a few RPG books, though not necessarily for the current campaign game.  They might try to GM once in a while.  They usually come up with a name and may or may not come up with a brief background or concept; both of which are usually taken at least partially from a book or movie.  They generally will go with the flow, but may argue a point of rules or setting information on occasion.

This would be my second-favorite type of player.


3. The Hardcore Player
The hardcore player always insists on owning the rulebook for the latest game before agreeing to play it.  They will also own several supplements to make sure they have access to the "best" stuff.  They tend to be terrible min-maxers.  They are also usually constant rules-lawyers, and will argue every rule as long as it falls to their advantage.  They create long, detailed background stories that are a mish-mash of various "cool" movies, books, etc.  They will always try to create something unique about their character to be a special snowflake.  They will almost always have a domineering personality any try to be the center of attention in all conversations during the game.

I loathe this style of player.  The drama queen antics and min-maxing rules lawyering get on my nerves very quickly.


Of the three types, only type #3 would want any type of empowerment.  And even most of them won't want the responsibility for the group that comes with empowerment - they just like the opportunity to be more of a center of attention and give advantages to their own character so they can "win" the game.

Empowerment is clearly only desirable for people who like to be GMs stuck playing under a different GM whose style they don't like.  I've been stuck in that position before, but even then, I'd still rather GM a different game of my own than try to armchair-GM somebody else's game.

I truly don't understand where they think a big market is for these kinds of games.

Quote from: jgantsI truly don't understand where they think a big market is for these kinds of games.

You said it yourself.  "The hardcore player always insists on owning the rulebook for the latest game before agreeing to play it.  They will also own several supplements to make sure they have access to the "best" stuff."

The game designers and publishers want to encourage this sort of player because they actually buy books and lots of them.  The casual players isn't a sale.  The market for this sort of game might not actually exist, but hope springs eternal.

Really, jgants, the issue is that you can't have all three at the table at the same time.  In order to have a fulfilling experience, you must focus on one type of player and tailor the rules strictly to their level of play.

Games that do not do this are Incoherent.

Quote from: John MorrowThe game designers and publishers want to encourage this sort of player because they actually buy books and lots of them.  The casual players isn't a sale.  

Yep. And so the game publishers are locked into a death spiral with the hardcore players, designing their systems to reward system mastery and buttressing them with heavy mechanics so the rules lawyers can't crack them.

Quote from: HaffrungYep. And so the game publishers are locked into a death spiral with the hardcore players, designing their systems to reward system mastery and buttressing them with heavy mechanics so the rules lawyers can't crack them.

It's worked for over 30 years, going on 35.  It's a proven model, the one that drives all of the best-selling RPG franchises in all media where RPGs exist, and it ain't going anywhere because no alternative yet produced can best it.

Quote from: jgantsI Of the three types, only type #3 would want any type of empowerment.

That's not my experience.  At all.

I know I'm probably going to regret speaking up, but I'm one of the people that makes five-page character backgrounds.  And I enjoy it when my players do, too.

However, I don't expect to have my backgrounds influence the game, and if they do it's almost always guaranteed to bite me in the ass (I'm a big fan of tragic heroes).  There's no "attention-whoring" or self-empowerment involved...it's just something that I enjoy doing.  For me, it's just part of the hobby.  I enjoy playing characters with a sense of history...even if said character is disintegrated by a trap four minutes after his debut. ;)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat's not my experience.  At all.

Care to elaborate on that?

I doubt you have players who take 4 weeks to come up with a name for their character (which ends up being "Morpheus" or something) and have a background that amounts to "I grew up an orphan and became a wizard", but who want to have shared-gm powers to influence the flow of the story during play; so the casual style players would pretty much be out.

I could maybe see it from some of the semi-casual players, but its not been my experience.

Quote from: jgantsCare to elaborate on that?

Sure.

I've had brand-new players, never played a damn thing before, show up in D&D games I've run and throw down statements like "And then the orc goes flying!".

To which my most common type of response these days is to assign a "Yes, but", like  "But he slashes you as he goes flying, for four damage!" - because, y'know what?  They don't give a shit about what the rules say; they're playing here, with me, showing off how cool their character is (he made the Orc go flying, man) and it's wicked fun.

Would I bring a new player I thought would go like that to the table with a rules-driven guy that's out for all he can grab?  FUCK, no.  The new player isn't interested in hearing how they're doing it wrong when they're enthusiastic and riffing, and neither am I.

Now, I've also had brand-new folks that want to get the rules "just so", and I would totally bring them to the table with that other guy.  And with those two, handing over big gobs of "Why don't you, Mr. Player, tell me what happens next?" is the last thing on my mind; these guys want to work the machine, and I've got entirely different shit up my sleeves for them.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSure.

I've had brand-new players, never played a damn thing before, show up in D&D games I've run and throw down statements like "And then the orc goes flying!".

To which my most common type of response these days is to assign a "Yes, but", like  "But he slashes you as he goes flying, for four damage!" - because, y'know what?  They don't give a shit about what the rules say; they're playing here, with me, showing off how cool their character is (he made the Orc go flying, man) and it's wicked fun.

Would I bring a new player I thought would go like that to the table with a rules-driven guy that's out for all he can grab?  FUCK, no.  The new player isn't interested in hearing how they're doing it wrong when they're enthusiastic and riffing, and neither am I.

Now, I've also had brand-new folks that want to get the rules "just so", and I would totally bring them to the table with that other guy.  And with those two, handing over big gobs of "Why don't you, Mr. Player, tell me what happens next?" is the last thing on my mind; these guys want to work the machine, and I've got entirely different shit up my sleeves for them.

First - see...told ya.  You gotta keep 'em separated.

Second - Levi, can you tell me, just out of curiosity, why did the Orc get to slash for 4?

Third - why is it then when people want to play by the rules, it gets termed things like "work the machine?"

Quote from: jgantsI've basically ran into three kinds of players in my 20+ years of gaming...

Weird.  In your 20+ years of gaming, you appear to have missed a whole mess of players who fall in a wide portion of the spectrum between #2 and #3, which is where most of the players I've known have fallen.

!i!

Quote from: James J SkachFirst - see...told ya.  You gotta keep 'em separated.

I've got players that'd do fine in both groups, I note.  But some people?  Yeah, some people don't go together easily.

Quote from: James J SkachSecond - Levi, can you tell me, just out of curiosity, why did the Orc get to slash for 4?

Heh.

Because my job as GM, in a game where anyone can make shit up like that, is to keep shit grounded from flying off into stupid-land.

If everything is permitted, then people sometimes ruin the fun of "later on" because they're carried away by "right now".  And the way to keep that from happening, I find, is to go completely into 'generous bastard' mode; you can have anything within reason, and then I'll drop the price tag on you.  The further you go from the 'standard', the bigger the price tag.

More player authority?  You got it; but when you get it, I as the GM get more too, not less.  And then we're running on our dynamic instead of the book; if you get tired of it, or don't like it, drop back to the book, and I will too.

Any other dynamic of "player-empowerment" strikes me as a move towards making my job decorative.

And I'm pretty, but I'm not that pretty.

Quote from: James J SkachThird - why is it then when people want to play by the rules, it gets termed things like "work the machine?"

That's one of my personal buzz-phrases.  It's what I call it when I want rulesy fun.

It goes with "Clever!" as my notation for any rule that is really shiny-looking and adds not a damn thing to play.   Also, "Geek Stories" as "When gamers gush uncontrollably about their play".

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWeird.  In your 20+ years of gaming, you appear to have missed a whole mess of players who fall in a wide portion of the spectrum between #2 and #3, which is where most of the players I've known have fallen.

That is, of course, why anecdotal evidence is almost useless in discussions like this.  Different people can have vastly different experiences.

I've never had to deal with much of the nonsense that other people talk about and sometimes people say things about their assumptions that just leave me stunned.

Quote from: Old Geezer...
As far as "players giving back" -- when I'm GMing, I expect my players to be present and focused.  No, they don't have to put in hours of out-of-game time.  But be on time, get your ass to the table, pay attention, and make reasonable decisions for your character.

And think.  Surprise me.  Come up with the 101st way to get inside the Imperial base when I have 100 defensive measures in place....

That's it for me and what I want as a player as well.  A world-oriented, sand-box environment world that is GM/referred fairly.  I want a high level of versimilitude that lets me get into the GM's setting and using creativity, logic and life expereince come up with that 101st way of doing things.  And I want a real chance of failure if I F'up, or just get grossly unlucky.  

As a GM I live for that 101st way, that surprise.  

As an aside, given that we all have fairly demanding jobs and family comittments being on-time gets some slack.  Oddly enough (or maybe not since time-management is the key to our sanity) not one of us has ever missed or blown off a seesion absent a family emergency or unavoidable job demand, and then with ample notice.

Quote from: RPGPunditMost players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

Sooo... why don't you keep playing the same way you always have with them and let people with players more interested in creatively contributing play games they think they'll have fun with? I really don't understand why your anecdotal experiences discredit other people's anecedotal experiences. That is, some players don't like empowerment, but some do, so each group can play how they like.

I certainly agree with the poster upthread that said most indie designers are ex-GMs who got tired of doing all the work. And, hey, instead of moaning about it until they left gaming entirely, they designed systems to help them with this problem. And some people have had fun with these games. Really. I accept your experiences as true and valid, so I ask that you do the same with my experiences. I have personally played story games in which all the participants actively participated, throwing out ideas and discussing what would be cool to have happen next, and we had a great time. It certainly won't work with every group, but please don't deny the reality of my experience.

By the way, in most story games I've played, NO ONE puts in hours of work in preparation. We just show up, chat out a few ideas, and PLAY! It's easy and fun, for us.

Quote from: somegamerI really don't understand why your anecdotal experiences discredit other people's anecedotal experiences.

Because THEY are out to sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids, you dirty troll.  :p

!i!

Quote from: somegamerSooo... why don't you keep playing the same way you always have with them and let people with players more interested in creatively contributing play games they think they'll have fun with? I really don't understand why your anecdotal experiences discredit other people's anecedotal experiences. That is, some players don't like empowerment, but some do, so each group can play how they like.

This is a great approach.  I'm just curious: why did it required a contentious, condescending "theory" to do that?

And jsut out of further curiosity - why come into this site, and this thread, if it's really all just about play and let play?

Quote from: somegamerI certainly agree with the poster upthread that said most indie designers are ex-GMs who got tired of doing all the work. And, hey, instead of moaning about it until they left gaming entirely, they designed systems to help them with this problem. And some people have had fun with these games. Really. I accept your experiences as true and valid, so I ask that you do the same with my experiences. I have personally played story games in which all the participants actively participated, throwing out ideas and discussing what would be cool to have happen next, and we had a great time. It certainly won't work with every group, but please don't deny the reality of my experience.

So, wait, am I to understand that the entire "empowerment" movement, as a subset of the story-building movement, was really for GM's who were tired of doing the work? I understand Luke Crane has said this, but...really...this was the impetus?

That is certainly not the tenor of the essays at the Forge...

Sooooo...why don't you keep to the sites that cater to your kind of gaming and let people who don't share your laser like focus on story and religious adherence to player empowerment discuss gaming on their own terms?

Quote from: James J SkachSooooo...why don't you keep to the sites that cater to your kind of gaming and let people who don't share your laser like focus on story and religious adherence to player empowerment discuss gaming on their own terms?

Such a friendly little place, where each poster is like a ray of sunshine!

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not so much a matter of resentment as lack of interest in it, unless the "empowerment" becomes mandatory.  Then it becomes resentment.  Mandatory
"empowerment" isn't.

A lot of the Forgey games pretty well make empowerment "mandatory", and that's something that's slipping into conventional RPGs, especially in the area of character creation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNow, that's a problem in my book.  If I'm putting out my all as GM for their entertainment, I expect the players to put forth some effort in their "regular role".  If they resent that expectation, I don't want to GM for them.

I wouldn't be so sure.  One of the big eye-openers for me in my recent time as a GM was running the Legion campaign.  In this campaign; I essentially told each of my players which superhero they were playing, what his origin was, what his personality was basically like. In other words, I broke all the supposed "regular role" rules about the stuff players are supposed to get to decide. I was quite nervous about doing so, but it was a special campaign where the idea was to closely emulate the style of the Legion comic, and this was the only way I felt the game would work.

And as it turned out, my players LOVED it. They loved the structure that this gave them, and the ability to make the superhero their own, with their own characteristics and emphasis WITHIN the boundaries of the traditional hero's profile.  It was kind of like taking an existing character (say, James Bond, Dr.Who, Captain Kirk, whatever) and giving it to a new actor. He had to follow the context of that character, but he also could try to make it his own within the boundaries of that recognized character.

And the real shocker, the thing that makes me think this could work beyond just something like the Legion, is that many of the players had never read a single legion comic in their life; they had no idea of the character's personality beyond what I'd told them about, and yet they still managed to play the character in such a way that I could say it was undeniably true (this was the case with Ultra Boy, Chameleon Boy, Timber Wolf, and Tyroc; while the character playing Invisible Kid had relatively little prior experience with the character, the guy playing Wildfire only moderately so; and the ones playing Colossal Boy and Sun Boy had more extensive familiarity- but ALL of them managed to both play the character in a way that was recognizeably that character, and also their own interpretation of it).

This, to me, is something revolutionary. Its something that bears more exploration.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SunBoyI beg your pardon?

Not you, Sunboy, obviously, and not Jong. But think about it: how many of the others have you seen getting totally stuck on the choice of a name for their character?
A few of you guys dislike having a name given to you, most of you are ok with it, and a few of you really prefer it that way so you don't have to think one up yourselves.

Quotebut they also just lay down quietly on their backgrounds and can't or won't let their characters grow. Most of the time they're not even good players. And that blows.

I think we both know which examples you're thinking of here from our own gaming circles. And you're right. These guys, the 5-page background guys, tend to be an annoyance to the other players as well, who resent having such a player trying to demand that he be attended to in this way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachThis is a great approach.  I'm just curious: why did it required a contentious, condescending "theory" to do that?

Yeah, Ron Edwards is an asshole, isn't he? I agree that his high-handed, holier-than-thou, handed from the mountain, brook no argument essays are annoying as crap. But, he had a few good ideas. Like, different people want different things from their games. Crazy, right? But as soon as I was able to get past the bullshit, I saw that some people want to "win," some people want to explore a world, and some people want to tell a story. Many/most people want more than one of these, if in different amounts, but at it's core, it's a good point. Some groups want to have a competitive player vs. GM game, others want a cooperative story. And different mechanics support these different goals. I agree Ron tends to be terribly judgmental about these goals, but he does appear to be an asshole, so what can you expect?

QuoteAnd jsut out of further curiosity - why come into this site, and this thread, if it's really all just about play and let play?

Because I heard y'all were talking shit and I wanted to watch! But then I read all these strawmen being built and knocked down and wanted to share my perspective. Naive as it sounds, I think we'd really all benefit from open, honest communication.

QuoteSo, wait, am I to understand that the entire "empowerment" movement, as a subset of the story-building movement, was really for GM's who were tired of doing the work? I understand Luke Crane has said this, but...really...this was the impetus?

Fuck if I know. I mean, I'm not every designer, or even any designer. I'm just voicing what I've personally observed. As for me, I'm not a former GM, I'm just a player who feels more engaged and creative with story games than I did with "traditional" (whatever that means) games.

QuoteThat is certainly not the tenor of the essays at the Forge...

Sorry, it turns out that people that play story games aren't, in fact, an army out to destroy all who differ. We're just some people that like to tell stories together and find that certain mechanics help us out. In fact, most all the people I hang with roll their eyes at the pretension of the Forge. The Forge does not speak for me, or every player of story games, nor do I speak for them.

QuoteSooooo...why don't you keep to the sites that cater to your kind of gaming and let people who don't share your laser like focus on story and religious adherence to player empowerment discuss gaming on their own terms?

Pardon me for interrupting you. I heard misconceptions bandied about, and I thought I would step in and try to correct them.

Quote from: somegamerBut, he had a few good ideas. Like, different people want different things from their games. Crazy, right? But as soon as I was able to get past the bullshit, I saw that some people want to "win," some people want to explore a world, and some people want to tell a story.  Many/most people want more than one of these, if in different amounts, but at it's core, it's a good point.

That actually describes the Threefold/GDS theory from rec.games.frp.advocacy, which predated the GNS and was the basis for it.  Ron didn't invent the idea.  He borrowed it and made it more devisive and less useful.

Here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/81db63d48b390693?dmode=source) is a nice message from 1996 on rec.games.frp.advocacy that discusses the ideas being tossed around in that forum at the time.  It contains one of the earliest forms of the triangle that would become the GDS and be trandformed into the GNS and does a better job of either explaining what each point on the triangle was originally designed to represent.  It also talks about the idea of "allocated characters", which is what RPGPundit is currently talking about.

Kids.  No sense of history. :p

Quote from: RPGPunditA lot of the Forgey games pretty well make empowerment "mandatory", and that's something that's slipping into conventional RPGs, especially in the area of character creation.

Wait, what?

Player empowerment in character creation is a very different beast from player empowerment in-session. I can see plenty of reasons why players and GMs of traditional RPGs (myself included) get uncomfortable with the idea that players can up and declare facts about the gameworld smack in the middle of a session: it undermines the sense that you are exploring a "real" world as opposed to just messing about at a gaming table. (For example, it makes running investigative games nigh-impossible if the players can up and declare that "X is the killer!", regardless of whether the GM set up all the evidence to point at Y.)

On the other hand, in character generation that's entirely different. In just about all games I run these days, players are absolutely free to suggest new setting elements as part of the process of character creation. While I do go along with the "players control their characters, GM controls the setting" idea, I don't believe that a player's character stops at their fingertips; if it's important to a player's character concept that they come from some barbarian tribe from the frozen North, then so long as I haven't expressly said "you guys are all natives of a decadent civilisation from the tropical South" it'd be churlish of me not to plonk a suitable barbarian tribe in the frozen North. (Although obviously I retain a final veto.)

If you like, in my campaigns the game setting isn't "fixed" until the start of the first session; I'm absolutely up for moulding it to fit the player characters as part of the character gen process, but once we start the campaign proper I won't contradict established precedent, and the players' ability to suddenly add things to the setting effectively disappears (they usually don't mind - they have enough on their plate dealing with the setting elements already established, after all).

Player empowerment at character creation involves players helping me add details and elements and ideas to an unfinished machine; player empowerment in-session involves changing the way that machine functions after it's been turned on - it's occasionally useful if the machine is clearly not working the way we wanted it to, but if it ain't broke it's best not to meddle. They are completely different beasts, and for my money if there's one area of an RPG where you really want to have player empowerment it's character gen: how can you expect a player to enjoy a game if they can't make a PC which engages them?

There are two ways to create characters: In the first, you as the GM say "ok here are the boundaries, you fill in the blanks within these boundaries".  In the second, the player makes up whatever the fuck he wants to unless it bumps into a major conflict for your plans for the campaign, and you adjust accordingly.

The first method is more traditional than the second, but I'll agree that there's a lot of GMs who have no problem going the second way; and that in general in either method more leeway is certainly given during the character creation process than in game itself with at least some elements of setting control (creation of NPCs, for example, if the player wants his character to have a family, or an old enemy, or something like that).

But in "Storygaming", the players can oblige the GM to include whatever they want; they set the limits for him, and in that sense they tell him exactly what they want him to run, leaving the GM the deprotagonized copy boy for the players' collective fantasies.
This goes so far as some games actually requiring the players to create the entire setting, to build the world, and then oblige the GM to play in that world.

Milder but still a serious issue is the fact that in several new games the idea of FORCING the players to create detailed backgrounds of their own for their characters (something that, as I've pointed out here, most players don't actually enjoy doing), and then forcing the GM to accept those backgrounds with limits on what he's allowed to veto, has been slowly creeping in.

This is something that will only discourage your typical "low-commitment" player from RPGs, leaving the hobby in the hands of the ubergeeks; and it will increase the likelihoods of GM/Player conflicts in the gaming groups.

RPGPundit


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBut in "Storygaming", the players can oblige the GM to include whatever they want; they set the limits for him, and in that sense they tell him exactly what they want him to run, leaving the GM the deprotagonized copy boy for the players' collective fantasies.
This goes so far as some games actually requiring the players to create the entire setting, to build the world, and then oblige the GM to play in that world.

Example, please?

It doesn't have to be perfect or super-specific; just, wave at an instance of what the hell it is you're talking about.

Quote from: Warthur(For example, it makes running investigative games nigh-impossible if the players can up and declare that "X is the killer!", regardless of whether the GM set up all the evidence to point at Y.)

That's a spurious example of player empowerment, and I believe you're aware of that.  Even as someone who isn't a great fan of this sort of thing, extending authorial power (or whatever anyone chooses to call it) to the players is never taken to the extreme of allowing players to make game-defeating statements like the example you suggest.  That's just an example of a player trying to be a dick, or a GM being a pushover.

That's not how "empowerment" works.  Don't just make stuff up for the sake of an argument.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat's a spurious example of player empowerment, and I believe you're aware of that.  Even as someone who isn't a great fan of this sort of thing, extending authorial power (or whatever anyone chooses to call it) to the players is never taken to the extreme of allowing players to make game-defeating statements like the example you suggest.  That's just an example of a player trying to be a dick, or a GM being a pushover.

Then what is the reasonable range of player power, and how do you get everyone on the same page about that range? Maybe my players are simpletons, but they like to know what they can do and what they can't do. I can imagine a co-authored game with my group breaking down into confusion, bickering, and eventually the most forceful personality getting his own way.

One thing that the advocates of shared authoring seem to overlook is that most players do not want to have responsibility for making the game run smoothly. They just want to run their PCs, and let the GM be the adjudicator and fairness cop. And in the groups I've played in, the GM isn't just the guy who enjoys world-building and running the game; he's also the guy who the other players trust - and expect - to referee the game in a fair manner. They don't necessarily trust their other co-players to be fair and even-handed.

Quote from: HaffrungThen what is the reasonable range of player power, and how do you get everyone on the same page about that range?

For starters, you can write a game with specific rules that detail the range of authorial powers each player has.  And then you can let the people who enjoy that sort of thing and can manage the responsibility play it.  Different strokes and all that.

I can't go into much detail now, but I'd like to explore the different ranges of "empowerment" later.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditBut in "Storygaming", the players can oblige the GM to include whatever they want; they set the limits for him, and in that sense they tell him exactly what they want him to run, leaving the GM the deprotagonized copy boy for the players' collective fantasies.
This goes so far as some games actually requiring the players to create the entire setting, to build the world, and then oblige the GM to play in that world.

Really?

I've not seen any "Story games" that go that far; the closest I've seen to it is Burning Empires, where the players and the GM collaboratively come up with the stats for the planet the PCs will be defending from the worm invasion (and it should be noted that those stats exist within some very well-defined boundaries) - and I wouldn't call Burning Empires a Story Game.

QuoteMilder but still a serious issue is the fact that in several new games the idea of FORCING the players to create detailed backgrounds of their own for their characters (something that, as I've pointed out here, most players don't actually enjoy doing), and then forcing the GM to accept those backgrounds with limits on what he's allowed to veto, has been slowly creeping in.

Well, that's not player empowerment, is it? If anything, it's "game designer empowerment", with the designers making the games nigh-unplayable unless you use a certain method for character creation.

I'd go so far as to say that a certain amount of player empowerment is a vital part of a character creation system, even if it's only the right to say to the GM "I'm sorry, I really don't like this character you've pre-genned for me; could I have another, please?"

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat's a spurious example of player empowerment, and I believe you're aware of that.  Even as someone who isn't a great fan of this sort of thing, extending authorial power (or whatever anyone chooses to call it) to the players is never taken to the extreme of allowing players to make game-defeating statements like the example you suggest.  That's just an example of a player trying to be a dick, or a GM being a pushover.

True, but any extension of authorial power to the players in an investigative scenario runs that risk: it's always possible that players will use that authorial power to come up with evidence that makes the solution to the mystery the GM came up with ("Y did it") impossible. It's often not immediately obvious when this happens; it's only clear that it's happened when the players sit down, get all the evidence they've come up with (player-inspired and GM-provided alike) and realise that nobody could have killed Z that it's a problem.

Don't forget, in Dogs In the Vineyard the GM is not allowed to make the call on whether the PCs did the morally right thing in driving the moral blight out of the town; the players can lynch the morally-upright mayor who never put a finger wrong and leave the openly demon-worshipping heretics alone and declare the problem solved if they want.

EDIT TO ADD: Either way, investigative games hinge on there being a "real" solution to the mystery, and as such aren't amenable to the sort of consensus reality you tend to get when you share authorial power. Either the players have authorial power over the outcome of the mystery, in which case the investigative elements of the game are meaningless, or they don't, in which case their authorial power is just as meaningless - if the players only have authorial power over unimportant flavour, how is that really different from a traditional D&D game where the players get to describe how they wound their opponents when they land damage in combat?

Quote from: Arsenic CanaryI know I'm probably going to regret speaking up, but I'm one of the people that makes five-page character backgrounds.  And I enjoy it when my players do, too.

However, I don't expect to have my backgrounds influence the game, and if they do it's almost always guaranteed to bite me in the ass (I'm a big fan of tragic heroes).  There's no "attention-whoring" or self-empowerment involved...it's just something that I enjoy doing.  For me, it's just part of the hobby.  I enjoy playing characters with a sense of history...even if said character is disintegrated by a trap four minutes after his debut. ;)

That happens to me all the time...especialy in your games!

Fucker!

:D

Quote from: HaffrungThey just want to run their PCs, and let the GM be the adjudicator and fairness cop. And in the groups I've played in, the GM isn't just the guy who enjoys world-building and running the game; he's also the guy who the other players trust - and expect - to referee the game in a fair manner. They don't necessarily trust their other co-players to be fair and even-handed.

I feel like the discussion is being muddled by conflating different playstyles and gaming goals. Of course players who want to explore a world and just want to run their personal PCs won't be as into player empowerment. However, most story gamers are interested in the, well, story, which clearly extends beyond their individual PC. They work to shape the game world to elucidate their character's journey. Their character is not their personal avatar in the game world, but a tool to influence the story. It doesn't descend into bickering because everyone puts the story over their indivdual guy (his journey may be to die horribly) and there are mechanics in place to help deal with differences of opinions.

I'm sorry for going all jargony, but in summary: hard-core simulationist immersionists are probably not a good fit for in-game player empowerment. But some people have different versions of fun that make player empowerment work well.

Quote from: somegamerBut some people have different versions of fun that make player empowerment work well.

No doubt. But many of the advocates of shared authoring, such as Luke Crane, act as though they're leading a liberation of oppressed players. They call traditional players 'submissive', or presume that GMs in traditional games are selfish egomaniacs who jealously hoard their authority. They just can't seem to grasp that lots of people prefer the traditional GM-Player model because they enjoy it, not because of dysfunctional power dynamics.

Quote from: HaffrungNo doubt. But many of the advocates of shared authoring, such as Luke Crane, act as though they're leading a liberation of oppressed players. They call traditional players 'submissive', or presume that GMs in traditional games are selfish egomaniacs who jealously hoard their authority. They just can't seem to grasp that lots of people prefer the traditional GM-Player model because they enjoy it, not because of dysfunctional power dynamics.

Or even go so far as to claim that GM fiat is destroying the hobby.

Right here. On the RPGSite. In response to a direct question. For which I have aloways given him credit (and for admitting he has no data to back it up, only gut instinct).

Quote from: James J SkachOr even go so far as to claim that GM fiat is destroying the hobby.

:raise:

I find that idea deeply silly.

Quote from: James J SkachOr even go so far as to claim that GM fiat is destroying the hobby.

Whereas I believe that eliminating GM fiat is destroying the hobby - whether its the D20 method of codifying every last little situation, or the storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Quote from: jgantsthe storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Reduction of GM authority isn't universal to story-games.  I'm not at all certain that it's even central in any real way.

Just to be clear:

I'm not saying "Story Building Game" = GM Fiat Destruction.

I was imply amplifying Haffrung's comment with how far the idea can be taken. IIRC, Mr. Crane is not the sole holder of this idea; but I could be mistaken on that.

And I agree, Levi - it's a deeply silly idea, IMHO.

Quote from: James J SkachOr even go so far as to claim that GM fiat is destroying the hobby.

Right here. On the RPGSite. In response to a direct question. For which I have aloways given him credit (and for admitting he has no data to back it up, only gut instinct).

One assumes, given the hobby and the phenomenon share a birthday, that it's doing so at a rather reluctant pace.

Quote from: James J SkachIIRC, Mr. Crane is not the sole holder of this idea; but I could be mistaken on that.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that a fair few people share the idea.  Many of the ones I know of, though, have happily moved on to simply dispensing with the GM altogether - and I'm okay with that, if it's done well.

Quote from: HaffrungNo doubt. But many of the advocates of shared authoring, such as Luke Crane, act as though they're leading a liberation of oppressed players. They call traditional players 'submissive', or presume that GMs in traditional games are selfish egomaniacs who jealously hoard their authority. They just can't seem to grasp that lots of people prefer the traditional GM-Player model because they enjoy it, not because of dysfunctional power dynamics.

This is really interesting because Burning Wheel is a GMed game with a fairly powerful GM in-game. The situation-building is pretty collaborative, but I think it's pretty fair for a group to figure out together what kind of game they want to play. I have no explanation for this apparent discrepancy between his words and his desgins.

As for strong GMs destroying the hobby, that sounds pretty silly to me. I do think that story games are an opportunity for growth in the hobby, attracting people with different focuses.

I, personally, find story games less intimidating than games with dozens of sourcebooks that I need to be familiar with to play "correctly." I also, once again this is just me, find the hierarchical structure of a single strong GM and players who are unable to come up with character names rather distasteful. From the outside, it seems as if they are cowed and afraid to contribute, because that's the only reason *I* would be so passive. But, intellectually, if not emotionally, I understand that those players want something else from the hobby than I do. Perhaps some of the less GM-supportive comments you've heard come from the "everyone is like me" fallacy.

I don't have anything against GMs as a pace-setting, tone-setting, NPC-playing, plot-supplying referee. However, in one of the rpgpundit's recent blog posts he stated that "a good GM is a good alpha male." I think this really turned me off personally, as a woman. I resented the implication that 1. GMs are male and 2. GMs are "above" the players in a hierarchy. Once again, I take a deep breath and accept that not everyone shares my suspicion of one person in a group putting themselves over the others. I prefer a game where everyone contributes ideas, but it's okay to be different.

These are just my feelings, presented so that you may have a better idea where these anti-GM sentiments you perceive may be coming from.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOh, I'm pretty sure that a fair few people share the idea.  Many of the ones I know of, though, have happily moved on to simply dispensing with the GM altogether - and I'm okay with that, if it's done well.

I have no problem with them moving on and doing so - hell I don't care if they do it poorly.  That's their business.

I just don't think that their personal revelation requires sweeping indictments in the process.

Quote from: James J SkachI just don't think that their personal revelation requires sweeping indictments in the process.

'Course not.

I could make some lamely humourous statement about this being the internet and all, but honestly?   Indictments aren't required or even useful.  

I'm pretty cool with the enthused sweeping statement now and again, as just a sign of emotional intensity (I've totally said "This new bubblegum is great!  Those old ones suck so bad!" and not meant much of anything by it), but when it takes on the form of a habit, it's a sucky habit.

I know this with the firmness of someone who has indulged all-too-often in said habit.

Quote from: somegamerThis is really interesting because Burning Wheel is a GMed game with a fairly powerful GM in-game. The situation-building is pretty collaborative, but I think it's pretty fair for a group to figure out together what kind of game they want to play. I have no explanation for this apparent discrepancy between his words and his desgins.

Because being a powerful force in-game is not the same as GM Fiat. Nothing in Mr. Crane's belief about his own GMing history and his views on GM Fiat to prevents him from designing a game that includes a powerful in-game GM.

Quote from: somegamerAs for strong GMs destroying the hobby, that sounds pretty silly to me. I do think that story games are an opportunity for growth in the hobby, attracting people with different focuses.

Depends on how you define the hobby.  In the meta-sense?  Sure - gamers.  In the Role-Playing Games hobby - I'm becoming more convinced there's a distinction worth the difference between them.  But that's just my personal belief.

Quote from: somegamerI, personally, find story games less intimidating than games with dozens of sourcebooks that I need to be familiar with to play "correctly."

Talk about misconceptions! There are plenty of non "Story Building Games" that don't require dozens of source books required to play "correctly."

Quote from: somegamerI also, once again this is just me, find the hierarchical structure of a single strong GM and players who are unable to come up with character names rather distasteful. From the outside, it seems as if they are cowed and afraid to contribute, because that's the only reason *I* would be so passive. But, intellectually, if not emotionally, I understand that those players want something else from the hobby than I do. Perhaps some of the less GM-supportive comments you've heard come from the "everyone is like me" fallacy.

See, these are the kinds of statements that get people riled up. I mean, you've done an admirable job of trying to point out this is how you would feel, as opposed to a general statement - so that's great. But, damn thats' close to saying people who play with the "traditional" GM model are cowed and afraid to contribute.

And it goes all the way back to the first post you made, which included:

Quote from: somegamerSooo... why don't you keep playing the same way you always have with them and let people with players more interested in creatively contributing play games they think they'll have fun with?

Given the two together, it sure looks like you think people who are players in non 'Story Building Games' either don't contribute creatively, don't want to creatively contribute, are afraid to do so, or some combination thereof. And to top it all off, you find their style of play "distasteful."

Quote from: somegamerI don't have anything against GMs as a pace-setting, tone-setting, NPC-playing, plot-supplying referee. However, in one of the rpgpundit's recent blog posts he stated that "a good GM is a good alpha male." I think this really turned me off personally, as a woman. I resented the implication that 1. GMs are male and 2. GMs are "above" the players in a hierarchy. Once again, I take a deep breath and accept that not everyone shares my suspicion of one person in a group putting themselves over the others. I prefer a game where everyone contributes ideas, but it's okay to be different.

These are just my feelings, presented so that you may have a better idea where these anti-GM sentiments you perceive may be coming from.

Yeah, first, ignore Pundit when he rants.  You'll live a longer, happier, healthier, stress-free life.

Second, I'd guess many people never even think of it as "one person putting themselves over another."

Third, there's that assumption again – that if the "traditional" GM model is in play, not everyone is contributing ideas. Perhaps you should rethink/rephrase this with the understanding that they contribute creatively, just in ways different from the way you prefer.

Fourth: The more I read (the more you clarify) the more I don't even think your statements are anti-GM.  They seem to have more to do with how you feel about the players.  But that's just me.

Quote from: James J SkachSee, these are the kinds of statements that get people riled up. I mean, you've done an admirable job of trying to point out this is how you would feel, as opposed to a general statement - so that's great. But, damn thats' close to saying people who play with the "traditional" GM model are cowed and afraid to contribute.

I completely understand! But it's hard for me to explain the kneejerk distaste some people feel for the hierarchical mode without, well, describing my own kneejerk distaste. Emotions and assumptions, whether valid or not, fuel statements, and it's hard to understand where the statements are coming from without understanding the emotions and assumptions that fueled them. I deliberately layed myself out there in the cause of honesty.

QuoteThird, there’s that assumption again – that if the “traditional” GM model is in play, not everyone is contributing ideas. Perhaps you should rethink/rephrase this with the understanding that they contribute creatively, just in ways different from the way you prefer.

This is a great point. Could we talk about the difference between the "player empowerment" that seems to be getting a drubbing in this thread versus "contributing creatively?" To me, "player empowerment" means the player can say things like "oh! It'd be awesome if he's my ex-boyfriend!" or "I'd like a scene where I confront him with this information." I also enjoy player empowerment that allows them to narrate the result of their actions, once the dice have determined degree of success. For example, the dice say I'm mostly, defeated by the masked swordsman. I narrate that he kicks my ass, but I get a slash in that partially reveals his face. Another good example of player empowerment is the ability to create a "kicker" that describes what just happened in your PC's life to launch the action. But all of these sound like things the "can't find a name for their characters" players would find overwhelming.

QuoteFourth: The more I read (the more you clarify) the more I don’t even think your statements are anti-GM.  They seem to have more to do with how you feel about the players.  But that’s just me.

You caught me, and that's what I meant when I said many story game designers were ex-GMs sick of doing all the work. I didn't just mean prep work, I also meant the work of making the game fun. Some players have an attitude that they should just show up and be spoon-fed their fun, and I find that idea personally obnoxious. I'm a busy working adult, too, but for those hours I'm playing, I try to be engaged creatively in the game. "Player empowerment," to me, is a nice way of saying "player responsibility to contribute."

Quote from: jgantsWhereas I believe that eliminating GM fiat is destroying the hobby - whether its the D20 method of codifying every last little situation, or the storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Indeed. GM authority is getting it from the other direction, too - gear-heads who trust numbers in books more than they trust people.

Maybe the model of an authoritative, fair-minded referee for roleplaying games couldn't last. Maybe it was an artifact of a particular time and place in gaming culture.

Then again, maybe it has always worked just fine for the great majority of players, but the people who it didn't work for are very, very frustrated and very, very persistent.

Quote from: jgantsWhereas I believe that eliminating GM fiat is destroying the hobby - whether its the D20 method of codifying every last little situation, or the storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Ding!  Winner.

Some people, though, to judge from the vituperation they heap upon GMs, must have had one hell of a combination of utter assmunch GMs and a total lack of self-esteem or backbone.

Quote from: somegamer"Player empowerment," to me, is a nice way of saying "player responsibility to contribute."

That's awesome way of putting it.

I'm always amazed how folks exaggerate the methods to a point that makes them appear polar opposites.  We're talking shades of gray here.  Even among the most "traditional" gamers I know, that are still playing, admit to the merit behind some of the ideas in these games.  I've never met anyone, outside of message board members, that believe these type of games are radically different.  These players are as ambivalent to the differences in these games as they are between the edition differences in D&D.  Different takes to achieve the same goal.

Quote from: somegamer"Player empowerment," to me, is a nice way of saying "player responsibility to contribute."

Again, the nature of this changes substantially when it goes from being optional to being mandatory.  Role-playing games are a hobby that I think most people play for fun.  Not a boot camp that they attend to build character.

Quote from: John MorrowAgain, the nature of this changes substantially when it goes from being optional to being mandatory.  Role-playing games are a hobby that I think most people play for fun.  Not a boot camp that they attend to build character.

How can anything be mandatory? If you don't like the rules, play a different game!

As for a "boot camp to build character," I think we both know that's an extreme exaggeration. I'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits. Some players would like to contribute more but aren't sure what's ok/how to, and certain systems give them guidance on how to do this and the GMs guidance on how to respond.

Different games for different goals! If things are going great, keep on keeping on. If there are a few players that feel constricted, try something with player input mechanics. Yay, variety!!!

Quote from: somegamerHow can anything be mandatory? If you don't like the rules, play a different game!

As for a "boot camp to build character," I think we both know that's an extreme exaggeration. I'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits. Some players would like to contribute more but aren't sure what's ok/how to, and certain systems give them guidance on how to do this and the GMs guidance on how to respond.

Different games for different goals! If things are going great, keep on keeping on. If there are a few players that feel constricted, try something with player input mechanics. Yay, variety!!!

I'm sick of posters like you.  Fuck you and your reasoned, calm-headed and logical answers.

I much prefer hateful rhetoric and ridiculous overstatement like so many others on this thread!  It's much more awesome to look stupid by exaggerating the established facts or stating deliberate mistruths!

I can't wait until they start building death-camps for you damn story-gamers so that we traditional-game folk can achieve narrative purity.

(and, yes folks, I'm mocking all of us here.  I'm just getting tired of seeing all the demonizing on both sides of the fence.)

Quote from: somegamerDifferent games for different goals!

Different games same goal but different ways to get there!

Quote from: somegamerHow can anything be mandatory? If you don't like the rules, play a different game!

Role-playing is a group activity, unless you are one of those lonely people who can't find a group and sits at home reading game books and dreaming of playing (I assume that you aren't, but plenty of people who talk about role-playing online aren't actually doing it).  That means that a person doesn't always have the sole decision of which system to play or their alternative is to not play.

Quote from: somegamerAs for a "boot camp to build character," I think we both know that's an extreme exaggeration.

Exaggeration?  Sure.  Extreme?  Not really.  Have you read the character generation example in Burning Empires?  How about Ron's "Brain Damage" essay?  And since I've discussed role-playing with people online (mid-1980s), there has been no shortage of people touting things designed to improve players starting with disadvantages in traditional games designed to force people to create characters with flaws and plot hooks.

Quote from: somegamerI'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits.

And what makes you think that they need to be or want to be pulled out of their shells/habits?  Once you start talking about pulling, pushing, or forcing, it stops being voluntary.  You're in the army now!

Quote from: somegamerSome players would like to contribute more but aren't sure what's ok/how to, and certain systems give them guidance on how to do this and the GMs guidance on how to respond.

Great.  Then don't make the mechanics mandatory.  Make them voluntary.  I voluntarily give my characters disadvantages all the time because they fit the character.  But I don't enjoy having to pick a certain number of character flaws or plot hooks from a list because the system demands it or gives me an important cookie (e.g., character points) that I won't get if I don't.  If people want to do it, why does it need a reward mechanism?  

In fact, that's one of the things I find most baffling about Forge game design -- the obsession over reward mechanics.  I want to play interesting characters.  I want to role-play them and have fun.  I don't need a reward mechanism to make me do things I want to do.  It's like being paid to breath or eat my favorite food.

Quote from: somegamerDifferent games for different goals! If things are going great, keep on keeping on. If there are a few players that feel constricted, try something with player input mechanics. Yay, variety!!!

Sure.  But once the system requires that everyone do something or not do something, you can't have that variety between different players in the same game.  And that's the problem with "coherent" games that only support only a single style of play or agenda or games that want to push, pull, or force players to play a certain way to improve them.  Everyone has to play one way or not play at all.

Quote from: somegamerI'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits.

Again with the condescending implication that players in traditional groups need help, that players who are content to control only the actions of their PCs are hiding in shells, or stuck in a rut.

Why is it so hard to understand that many, many intelligent, creative players do not want to control anything more than the immediate actions of their PCs - not out of laziness, or lack of confidence, or submission, but because that's genuinely the way they have the most fun gaming.

Quote from: WarthurReally?

I've not seen any "Story games" that go that far; the closest I've seen to it is Burning Empires, where the players and the GM collaboratively come up with the stats for the planet the PCs will be defending from the worm invasion (and it should be noted that those stats exist within some very well-defined boundaries) - and I wouldn't call Burning Empires a Story Game.

I would. Its in Conspiracy of Shadows too. Many other storygames I've seen pretty much make it implicit that the player gets to make his character whatever he wants, and the GM must incorporate that into the campaign.


RPGPundit

Quote from: somegamerI don't have anything against GMs as a pace-setting, tone-setting, NPC-playing, plot-supplying referee. However, in one of the rpgpundit's recent blog posts he stated that "a good GM is a good alpha male." I think this really turned me off personally, as a woman. I resented the implication that 1. GMs are male and 2. GMs are "above" the players in a hierarchy. Once again, I take a deep breath and accept that not everyone shares my suspicion of one person in a group putting themselves over the others. I prefer a game where everyone contributes ideas, but it's okay to be different.

The term "alpha male" is a reference to the wolf pack, where indeed the head of the pack is a male.
It doesn't mean that the RPG-group's "alpha male" need be a male. That statement was in no way meant to be exclusive of the idea of women GMs, which can be perfectly good GMs as long as they're up to the task of being the Alpha.

I do believe that GMs are above players in the chain of command. If that makes it a hierarchy, so be it. Though its a very particular type of hierarchy; there should be certain things the GM is not allowed to do with regards to the players, and a great deal of responsibilities he must accept and act upon in a correct way.

The tyrannical GM who doesn't give a fuck about his players and runs the game as his own little novel is indeed a crappy GM; its just that neutering the GM role is not the solution to this problem.

My own players have on more than one occasion mocked me when I've consulted them about making a choice regarding something in the game or for the group, saying "hey mr.tough-guy, you talk big on your blog about being the Alpha Male, just step the fuck up and make the choice yourself!".  I take that as a well-meaning sign of trust on their part; but the fact is that the "Alpha GM", being a good leader, is not one who is an authoritarian that doesn't consult his players, or listen to their opinions about an issue before making his decision. Its just that he should be the one who has the final word on most aspects of the game and the group.

RPGPundit

Quote from: somegamerI, personally, find story games less intimidating than games with dozens of sourcebooks that I need to be familiar with to play "correctly."

Just to let you know, FtA! is a complete one-book game that doesn't require anything else to be played. The upcoming FtA!GN! sourcebook will have a lot of cool additional materials, but NOTHING in it will be essential to the game's playability.

I hope you check it out!

Oh, and welcome to theRPGsite.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HaffrungIndeed. GM authority is getting it from the other direction, too - gear-heads who trust numbers in books more than they trust people.

I agree. And, while we're at it, let's not forget its also been largely given a bad name due to the heavy-handed PCs-as-powerless-cheerleaders methods encouraged by the "story-based" games like White Wolf's Storyteller games and others.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jgants1. The Casual Player

2. The Semi-Casual Player

3. The Hardcore Twinky Player

By neglecting the fourth type of player you're only validating your argument with this list. I'm not saying this in a prickish sort of way. So don't go on the defense. Then again, maybe you just never met the fourth type.

So after editing number 3, I add:

4. The Real hardcore Player:
The RHCP owns dozens of roleplaying books, bucketloads of dice, and probably has GM'd at least a few times. He knows the rules inside and out through time spent playing and trying to create characters that challenge him or herself within the rulesset... ruleset... however you spell it. They're more concerned with roleplaying and a fun combat or two than grinding through hordes of monsters for "teh phat lewts". They wrote character backgrounds so that the GM has something to work into his world and they'll willingly read up on any world information the Gm wants them to. They tend to get along fine with 1 and 2, but 3 makes them want to commit suicide via ramming d20s through their eye sockets and into their brains.

:haw:

-=Grim=-

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree. And, while we're at it, let's not forget its also been largely given a bad name due to the heavy-handed PCs-as-powerless-cheerleaders methods encouraged by the "story-based" games like White Wolf's Storyteller games and others.

RPGPundit

To clarify, how so? Basically, I'm asking what these methods encouraged by WW are. I haven't seen them in the 13 years I've been playing the WW games, but I admit that sometimes I live in a bubble where I ignore the point of a game and go my own route. So I might have missed it. I mean shit, I hear these nightmare stories about Rein[dot]Hagen and his ideas of what the ST system was supposed to be and I'm completely surprised. So I'm not being coy- it's an honest question.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: RPGPunditI would. Its in Conspiracy of Shadows too. Many other storygames I've seen pretty much make it implicit that the player gets to make his character whatever he wants, and the GM must incorporate that into the campaign.

OK, I agree that that extent of player empowerment is unhealthy; I think GMs shouldn't be obliged to accept any conceivable character into their campaigns. ("Hi, my character is Disrupty Disrupterson, and he's a 10th level PC Slayer.")

In fact, when you think about it's a very one-sided kind of player empowerment, because it makes the player is absolutely sovereign over his choice of his own character, but completely unable to make any comment on the other players' characters. I think players also need to be able to say "I'm sorry, Bob, but I'm really not seeing how Disrupty Disrupterson fits into the party - do you think we could sort that out before game start?", just as much as the GM needs to be able to say that if he/she sees a problem - after all, if a totally broken PC is accepted into the game it's fun-spoiling for the other players as well as the GM.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe term "alpha male" is a reference to the wolf pack, where indeed the head of the pack is a male.
It doesn't mean that the RPG-group's "alpha male" need be a male. That statement was in no way meant to be exclusive of the idea of women GMs, which can be perfectly good GMs as long as they're up to the task of being the Alpha.

I prefer the Viking Hat.

"* I * am the GM!  * I * wear the Viking Hat!"

For myself, I dislike player "empowerment," but not on grounds of "power." No Viking Hats at my table, whether worn by one or all participants, kthx. In that sense only, gaming is like a relationship: You feel you need to distribute power by codifying rules? You're fucked, it's over already, get out of there.

Instead, I dislike the crudity of social relations and the predictability that's produced by the ham-fisted means of "power" distribution.

I write "ailing grandma" on my character sheet, thus announcing I "want" grandma to come up in the game at some point.

Result:

a) Grandma will come up in the game at some point. Predictable. BORING.

b) It is expected that I feel pleased and engaged when Grandma comes up in the game at some point. After all, had I not requested just that? Why the bored look on the face of this ingrate? Clockwork stimuli-response model of fun. CRUDE.

Quote from: somegamerThis is a great point. Could we talk about the difference between the "player empowerment" that seems to be getting a drubbing in this thread versus "contributing creatively?" To me, "player empowerment" means the player can say things like "oh! It'd be awesome if he's my ex-boyfriend!" or "I'd like a scene where I confront him with this information." I also enjoy player empowerment that allows them to narrate the result of their actions, once the dice have determined degree of success. For example, the dice say I'm mostly, defeated by the masked swordsman. I narrate that he kicks my ass, but I get a slash in that partially reveals his face. Another good example of player empowerment is the ability to create a "kicker" that describes what just happened in your PC's life to launch the action. But all of these sound like things the "can't find a name for their characters" players would find overwhelming.

."

As a GM I have a problem with that.  You, as a player, may not realize that I, the GM, have already invested a great deal of effort into making that masked swordsman someone 'kewl' to be discovered.  YOU think it's cool to 'johnny on the spot' make him your Ex, which is great for you, not so great for the GM and probably not all that terribly interesting for the other players at the table.

Sure, I can understand that you might want to be able to say 'Hey, it'd be cool if my Ex was involved with this mysterious plot'.  As a GM I should be paying attention to the subtle and not so subtle clues that let me realize you want that... but then it remains up to me to actually put that Ex in there.

In my personal 'gaming manifesto'... which I really need to track down and repost somewhere... I establish where I think the lines are best drawn. As a player you can create a character, and attach a whole host of NPC's to that character (family, lovers, allies, minions, bosses and enemies...) but the NPC's ultimately belong to the GM. Not the player.  That doesn't suit you? Well, obviously you aren't one of my players so who cares?

Quote from: GrimJestaTo clarify, how so? Basically, I'm asking what these methods encouraged by WW are.

Heavy railroading by the GM, with a bit of "No matter which way they go, put the contact there" and a bit of "How to force them back into your story if they escape".  It's faded a bit from the practical advice of recent books, but it's still nicely visible in the "Your Story is Leeet!" rhetoric that opens a couple of chapters.

Nothing that can't be ignored if you know to do so or just have good instincts; in my experience, a fair few WW gamers ignore it almost by instinct in their actual play, taking the rhetoric as kind of "pep talk babble" or some similar thing.

However, said advice has caused a lot of arguments (some at the table), and given at least a few groups that tried to buy into it honestly some really shitty play.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHeavy railroading by the GM, with a bit of "No matter which way they go, put the contact there" and a bit of "How to force them back into your story if they escape".  It's faded a bit from the practical advice of recent books, but it's still nicely visible in the "Your Story is Leeet!" rhetoric that opens a couple of chapters.

Nothing that can't be ignored if you know to do so or just have good instincts; in my experience, a fair few WW gamers ignore it almost by instinct in their actual play, taking the rhetoric as kind of "pep talk babble" or some similar thing.

However, said advice has caused a lot of arguments (some at the table), and given at least a few groups that tried to buy into it honestly some really shitty play.

I remember in college (where WW was all the rage with the local gaming scene) where I introduced the idea to a pure-WW player-turned-GM that it was not necessary to railroad players along a pre-defined story.

He really didn't comprehend what I was saying at first.  He took it for granted that heavy railroading was just part of running the games because that's how he interpreted the rulebooks to say that's how the games were supposed to be played.  You could literally see the veil coming off of his eyes when I explained the concept to him.

Now, one anecdotal piece of evidence is less than worthless, but I do have to say that I've only experienced this phenomenon with pure-WW players.

QuoteBut once the system requires that everyone do something or not do something, you can't have that variety between different players in the same game. And that's the problem with "coherent" games that only support only a single style of play or agenda or games that want to push, pull, or force players to play a certain way to improve them. Everyone has to play one way or not play at all.

Ok, so you have a mixture of players. I'm lucky living in a big city where I can pick and choose who I play with, but I know not everyone has that option. I guess what frustrates me is that it seems like the players interested in a different playstyle are, from the tone of this thread, being told to suck it up. It's not intuitively obvious to me why just controlling your own PC's immediate actions is the "default." In other words, if some players want something a little more "empowering," why can't you change up the game for a session or two just to try it out? Why is this so awful and threatening? Once again, if EVERYONE is happy, no need.

However, if the GM is sick of coming up with detailed plots that take him hours to prepare, if some of the players want more input in how the plot starts or plays out, or if some people just want a change of pace, why not do a one-shot of something different?

QuoteAs a GM I have a problem with that. You, as a player, may not realize that I, the GM, have already invested a great deal of effort into making that masked swordsman someone 'kewl' to be discovered. YOU think it's cool to 'johnny on the spot' make him your Ex, which is great for you, not so great for the GM and probably not all that terribly interesting for the other players at the table.

1. Every "player empowerment" game I've ever played has negotiation tactics that allow you temper (or ignore) player input. For instance, with the masked swordsman, you may say, "ok, but you only get to see one eye." Moreover, since you invested so much into this "kewl" fellow, what are you going to do if the dice go insane and I kill his ass? One of my personal frustrations with strongly pre-plotted games in the past were that I always seemed to kill a crucial NPC. Story games tend to be able to roll with or re-negotiate these punches better.

2. From your tone, it sounds like you've encountered similar attempts from players before. The alternatives are to tell them to shut up and stop stepping on your GMing toes or find ways to accommodate their contributions. Such as player empowerment mechanics.

3. The other players' interest will totally depend on what the other players are interested in, won't it? If they like tough moral decisions, they'll cheer when I introduce a complication like that. If they just want to kill things and take their stuff, well they're not entertaining me, either are they? Man, heterogeneous playstyle groups can be tough to balance. But going one way or another permanently isn't exactly fair, either.

QuoteI write "ailing grandma" on my character sheet, thus announcing I "want" grandma to come up in the game at some point.

Christ, it is awful when the GMs try to play to your interests, isn't it? Usually, a key like that would include information like "that I'm very close to"-- showing that putting her at risk will motivate your character. I guess the GM could just say "you have an ailing grandmother that your very close to-- won't you take the job for her operation?," but this feels a little rail-roady to me.

Here's the deal, I object to the title of this thread, "The Truth about Players." Players aren't some monolithic group that all want the same things. I object to the argument that boils down to "story games are dumb and evil because MY group wouldn't like to play like that." I object to the categorization of "players" as some separate less-creative group than "GMs," and that none of them want any more creative input. I, like many other story-gamers, have a sneaking suspicion that there are people out there playing and GMing traditional games (most having fun!) that may also enjoy story games. However, many or them haven't heard of them or have bought the "swine" hype.

To sum up:
1. Most story games take less prep time for the players (like 5 questions, not a sheet of stats) and a lot less prep time for the GM.
2. "Player empowerment" isn't about taking power away from the GM to run the show, it's about giving players approved routes to insert their ideas in a non-disruptive way. I've seen plenty of "but what if they did X!," but that's usually why there are games with specialized mechanics about it, to prevent game-killing moves.
3. I'm not sure how it's "implicit" in the story games that rpgpundit's read that the players get to play whoever they want. Most of the games I've read have been explicit in making it a group process, with connections between the PCs, or at least reasons for them to be sharing a goal, with the goal of everyone (including the GM) feeling like the group makes sense. The others have been implicit about this. Perhaps we're reading vagueness in opposite directions.
4. I agree there should be more "incoherent" (what a dumb term) games that accommodate different playstyles for the mixed group, which is the reality for most people in the hobby.
5. In the meantime, let's accept that there are many forms of fun, and try not to deny the validity of each other's existence.

Quote from: jgantsI remember in college (where WW was all the rage with the local gaming scene) where I introduced the idea to a pure-WW player-turned-GM that it was not necessary to railroad players along a pre-defined story.

He really didn't comprehend what I was saying at first.  He took it for granted that heavy railroading was just part of running the games because that's how he interpreted the rulebooks to say that's how the games were supposed to be played.  You could literally see the veil coming off of his eyes when I explained the concept to him.

Now, one anecdotal piece of evidence is less than worthless, but I do have to say that I've only experienced this phenomenon with pure-WW players.

I've seen this happen as well, and not with White Wolf players. "Story trumps everything" rhetoric was one of the things I ran into a lot with the various D&D groups I met at college; the other was general "But that's the way it is and has to be" based on the books (not quite rules lawyering...because it wasn't always in the books.)

Quote from: somegamerChrist, it is awful when the GMs try to play to your interests, isn't it?

No, it is socially awkward to try to play to my interests in this mechanistic fashion, and it's coercive to boot. I prefer to figure out my interests in my own sweet time, not before the game but while actually playing it, based on experiences and situations encountered there which none of us, player or GM, foresaw at the outset.

Quote from: jgantsNow, one anecdotal piece of evidence is less than worthless, but I do have to say that I've only experienced this phenomenon with pure-WW players.

The few "honest buy-ins with related, crappy play" I've seen?  Yeah, that right there is what I meant.

I've seen it outside of WW-purists, too; just not as often.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere are two ways to create characters: In the first, you as the GM say "ok here are the boundaries, you fill in the blanks within these boundaries".  In the second, the player makes up whatever the fuck he wants to unless it bumps into a major conflict for your plans for the campaign, and you adjust accordingly.

I've had play that acts like the second but is really the first in disguise; in other words, the GM has a narrowly defined set of boundaries in his head,but doesn't tell you what they are. "WHat kind of character should I make?" "Just make anything." "OK, here's my guy, with a specific niche and motivations." "OK, well, the campaign idea I have really has no room for that concept to do its thing; good luck trying to play enjoyably in spite of that." (That last statement was made, not explicitly--I could've just changed my character!--but over time, through play events, nicely shielding the GM from ever admitting that that's what he was doing. Ugh.)

Dysfunctional? You bet. Common or prevalent? God,I hope not. But it's happened to me more than once.

Quote from: RPGPunditMilder but still a serious issue is the fact that in several new games the idea of FORCING the players to create detailed backgrounds of their own for their characters (something that, as I've pointed out here, most players don't actually enjoy doing), and then forcing the GM to accept those backgrounds with limits on what he's allowed to veto, has been slowly creeping in.

Really? Wow. What games?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Ian NobleI can't wait until they start building death-camps for you damn story-gamers so that we traditional-game folk can achieve narrative purity.

You said "Narrative." To the deathcamps with you!

Sorry for the posting blitzkrieg,everyone; I'm catching up on the thread a bit.

Quote from: RPGPunditI wouldn't be so sure.  One of the big eye-openers for me in my recent time as a GM was running the Legion campaign.  In this campaign; I essentially told each of my players which superhero they were playing, what his origin was, what his personality was basically like.

[SNIP]

And as it turned out, my players LOVED it. They loved the structure that this gave them, and the ability to make the superhero their own, with their own characteristics and emphasis WITHIN the boundaries of the traditional hero's profile.  It was kind of like taking an existing character (say, James Bond, Dr.Who, Captain Kirk, whatever) and giving it to a new actor. He had to follow the context of that character, but he also could try to make it his own within the boundaries of that recognized character.

So. . .you're fine with constraints that you like, and down on constraints you don't like. Which is, kinda, everyone's feeling on this kind of thing. It's a huge leap from there to "WAR!" But whatever.

I agree that it's a fascinating and underexplored corner of gaming. You tried it, and it worked, and everyone went "cool! this is fun!" Strangely enough, nobody cried out "Away with your pretentious microgame, swine! Give us a real RPG!" Huh. I guess a constrained situation (like where you all play loyalty-divided Samurai on their way to kill a sorceror, or religious gun-toting circuit judges) can make for exciting play if all the players buy into it and pour all their creativity into the game. So if you're looking for that kind of constrained experience, you might check out a game specifically designed to do that well ("OK, tonight you're all the abused minions of a diabolical Master.") or tweak an existing constrained game to serve your needs ("Tonight you're all the terror-stricken slaves of a mad necromantic Pharaoh."),or just roll out a constrained scenario with an existing, more broadly applicable game (as you did with LoSH). They're all good and interesting options--I'd love to play an all-Paladin/Cleric or all-Thief/Assassin game of D&D sometime.

Now,you may not like any of the games I referenced above. You may in fact loathe them. That's fine. I'm just saying that it's the same kind of thing you're talking about (and not new either; Marvel Super-heroes and I presume DC Heroes have supported "Play these characters, in this general situation" gaming for years), even if you hate those particular appllications of the idea. Which is fair enough, really.

I think there's something else going on with this tread,too, slightly related to the above: You set the initial tenor of the discussion in your OP, and people are following that pattern perhaps a little unconsciously. For instance, Somegamer's talking about players not ponying up creative input, and people are like, "Aha! There's that snide assumption that trad players aren't creative!" But the fact is, she's responding to your initial portrait of players who can't even name their character; that seems to be a fair target for "they're not contributing creatively to the game." Hell, that misunderstanding ain't not even your fault, Pundit; I just think the discussion is becoming polarized by a lack of contextual awareness on some folks' parts.

Peace,
-Joel

PS Somegamer: welcome to the site!

OK, one more:

Quote from: WarthurDon't forget, in Dogs In the Vineyard the GM is not allowed to make the call on whether the PCs did the morally right thing in driving the moral blight out of the town; the players can lynch the morally-upright mayor who never put a finger wrong and leave the openly demon-worshipping heretics alone and declare the problem solved if they want.

I just wanted to point out that yeah, the Dogs can judge any way they want to, but that just means that they can't be called into account for "playing wrong," like the old "That's not how a Lawful Good character would act!" debate. In Dogs, the player is saying, "hell yes that's how this Lawful Good character acts,"and the interesting question then becomes "why?" And the answer can be anything from "This Dog has really become a monster (Lawful Evil?); he's going with the brutal no-fuss solution because nobody can condemn him," to "It's the Steward's fault his charges went off track; it's a ruthless solution but the only way to get the town out of its mess." The guy COULD be just being an asshat: "Look! I'm doing this because the game says I can! Next I'll shoot all of YOU and defecate on the Book of Life!" But then we're back to that player investment thing, which is required for any game to work.

Also, the Dogs players do NOT get to declare reality or override your GM background facts.Here's a post from Vincent Baker (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24412.msg238634#msg238634) correcting me in no uncertain terms on whether the players can contradict the facts I've prepared for the town. Short answer: They can't. "The only power the players have to judge or decide anything, anything at all, bindingly, is by having their characters act and then backing it up with dice."

Just like every RPG ever.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, it is socially awkward to try to play to my interests in this mechanistic fashion, and it's coercive to boot. I prefer to figure out my interests in my own sweet time, not before the game but while actually playing it, based on experiences and situations encountered there which none of us, player or GM, foresaw at the outset.

So you embrace immersion then, right?  Please note, I'm just trying to get where you're coming from, not trying to oppress or label you.

Quote from: John MorrowEveryone has to play one way or not play at all.

Your argument is nonsense.  Something like D&D presents just as coherent (rigid is better description here).

In D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds.  If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

Quote from: Ian NobleSo you embrace immersion then, right?  Please note, I'm just trying to get where you're coming from, not trying to oppress or label you.

No, if "immersion" means some kind of miraculous fusion of player and PC to the point of forgetting who you are yourself.

Yes, if it means interacting with the gameworld through the PC's perspective, very much including nonknowledge of upcoming events.

And furthermore, traditional-model games aim for the problem-solver players -- those who had nothing to the mix creatively or socially.

Is that stuff necessary for a "roleplaying game"?

No.  Problem-solving is a valid form of play.  I'm not mediocritizing it.  I think those players would have more fun (and do) in World of Warcraft, but that's for another discussion.

Story-games aim for creatively-inclined and social players.

It seems as though trad-model players like those that frequent these forums are pissed and angry that their hobby now has let the "cool kids" in.

Let me tell you, from someone who runs a convention now dominated by story-gamers (Strategicon in Los Angeles), these aren't cool kids.  They're just as dorky and foolish and fun and moody as everyone else.  They're just looking for another player style.

Are story-gamers often insufferable?  Oh, god yes.  Just as insufferable as grognards who rules-lawyer.

But denying their play-style and demonizing them says more about trad-model gamers' maturity than story-gamers' attitudes.

Live and let live.  

For me, you can take my trad-model, GM-centric games out of my cold, dead hands.  I'll never give them up for GM-less improv acting games.  However, I'm ripping things out of story-games and using them as spice to my trad-model meal; to be sure, it's making my games better!  

It's just a matter of finding others of like-mind.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYes, if it means interacting with the gameworld through the PC's perspective, very much including nonknowledge of upcoming events.

Got it and thanks for answering.

That's' what I thought you meant from you posts here and on rpg.net.

We're one the same page.  Please note my sig.

Quote from: Ian NobleSo you embrace immersion then, right?  Please note, I'm just trying to get where you're coming from, not trying to oppress or label you.

Not that I'm trying to label you...

See?  If you're not into "player empowerment, " you must be one of them there immersion geeks - or worse, one of those simulation weirdos.

Not that I'm trying to label you or anything...

Quote from: Ian NobleYour argument is nonsense.  Something like D&D presents just as coherent (rigid is better description here).

In D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds.  If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

You're kidding, right?

Your optimized build in combat is only as important as your group decides, and even then it can vary widely.  I've played D&D in plenty of groups that mixed optimized builds with people less focused on cheese...

Comments like this always lead me to wonder what the fuck kind of D&D experience people are having.  With whom are you playing that both min-maxers and role-players can't play in a game together?

Quote from: James J SkachYou're kidding, right?

Your optimized build in combat is only as important as your group decides, and even then it can vary widely.  I've played D&D in plenty of groups that mixed optimized builds with people less focused on cheese...

Comments like this always lead me to wonder what the fuck kind of D&D experience people are having.  With whom are you playing that both min-maxers and role-players can't play in a game together?

Whatever, James.  My experiences with D&D have always been like that.  With multiple groups.  I've never heard anything different from my friends' experiences either.

D&D is just as rigid as most story-games only with a big difference in goals.

Quote from: James J SkachNot that I'm trying to label you or anything...

Thanks!

Alas, I can't say the same for you: you're already labeled in my book.

Player empowerment to me is about letting the players make meaningful decisions about where the game goes.  That could be done entirely in character, or could be done by meta tools, but how you do it isn't the point.

If Kyle is GMing UA and he allows the game to be driven by my action as a player and the other players' actions then we are empowered players.  If on the other hand every time I try to wander from some plot he's cooked up in advance he hits me with a viking hat and shouts "stick to the plot lardboy!" then I at least am not an empowered player, and may well cry as well.

Player empowerment has fuck all to do with whether players have narrative control, and any argument that it does is just someone trying to coopt the language.

Quote from: Ian NobleAnd furthermore, traditional-model games aim for the problem-solver players -- those who had nothing to the mix creatively or socially.

Wow.

Quote from: Ian NobleNo.  Problem-solving is a valid form of play.  I'm not mediocritizing it.  I think those players would have more fun (and do) in World of Warcraft, but that's for another discussion.

Then why is it that so many "traditional" players don't find WoW satisfying? Why would that be?  Could it be because your idea about not adding anything creatively or socially is about as fucked as it can be?

You simply must be a troll.

Quote from: Ian NobleStory-games aim for creatively-inclined and social players.

Yes.  They are so much more creatively inclined and social. :rolleyes:  

Quote from: Ian NobleIt seems as though trad-model players like those that frequent these forums are pissed and angry that their hobby now has let the "cool kids" in.

No, it's that a bunch of people come in with attitudes like somegamer has - and now you have, expressed. Somehow "traditional" gamers are less than the "cool kids" sitting around trying to write a capital-S Story.

I've got no problem with people who want to have alternate levels of "empowerment" when playing; tinkering with the GM structure; focusing on meta-mechanics or aiming for some kind of Deep Question.

But when they do it in such a way that screams "And we're better for it; your way is broken; we are the future!" it requires a response.

Quote from: Ian NobleLet me tell you, from someone who runs a convention now dominated by story-gamers (Strategicon in Los Angeles), these aren't cool kids.  They're just as dorky and foolish and fun and moody as everyone else.  They're just looking for another player style.

Are story-gamers often insufferable?  Oh, god yes.  Just as insufferable as grognards who rules-lawyer.

But denying their play-style and demonizing them says more about trad-model gamers' maturity than story-gamers' attitudes.

Really?  So when my kids are bad, and I take them in hand and explain why they are wrong, it says...what, I'm immature? I think you'll find more people in the forum that don't deny them their play style, and don't demonize them.

Quote from: Ian NobleLive and let live.  

I'm fine with that; just don't tell me "Play and let play; and, by the way, know that if you play your way you are not bringing creativity to the table."

Quote from: Ian NobleFor me, you can take my trad-model, GM-centric games out of my cold, dead hands.  I'll never give them up for GM-less improv acting games.  However, I'm ripping things out of story-games and using them as spice to my trad-model meal; to be sure, it's making my games better!

Good for you.  I hope you have a good time with that.

Quote from: Ian NobleIt's just a matter of finding others of like-mind.

But see, when I asked somegamer why she was here, I get shit from one of the "Story Building Game" proponents.  I'm not trying to be acrimonious, but if it was simple as looking for folks of like mind, and that person was into story gaming, why the fuck would that individual come here, of all places?

And forgiven me if I don't quite get how you can say something like traditional players don't bring creativity to the table, but then claim you're all for traditional games.  I think, perhaps, you're a bit conflicted.  Come back when you understand yourself.

Quote from: MelinglorSorry for the posting blitzkrieg,everyone; I'm catching up on the thread a bit.


So. . .you're fine with constraints that you like, and down on constraints you don't like. Which is, kinda, everyone's feeling on this kind of thing. It's a huge leap from there to "WAR!" But whatever.

I agree that it's a fascinating and underexplored corner of gaming. You tried it, and it worked, and everyone went "cool! this is fun!" Strangely enough, nobody cried out "Away with your pretentious microgame, swine! Give us a real RPG!" Huh. I guess a constrained situation (like where you all play loyalty-divided Samurai on their way to kill a sorceror, or religious gun-toting circuit judges) can make for exciting play if all the players buy into it and pour all their creativity into the game. So if you're looking for that kind of constrained experience, you might check out a game specifically designed to do that well ("OK, tonight you're all the abused minions of a diabolical Master.") or tweak an existing constrained game to serve your needs ("Tonight you're all the terror-stricken slaves of a mad necromantic Pharaoh."),or just roll out a constrained scenario with an existing, more broadly applicable game (as you did with LoSH). They're all good and interesting options--I'd love to play an all-Paladin/Cleric or all-Thief/Assassin game of D&D sometime.

Now,you may not like any of the games I referenced above. You may in fact loathe them. That's fine. I'm just saying that it's the same kind of thing you're talking about (and not new either; Marvel Super-heroes and I presume DC Heroes have supported "Play these characters, in this general situation" gaming for years), even if you hate those particular appllications of the idea. Which is fair enough, really.

I think there's something else going on with this tread,too, slightly related to the above: You set the initial tenor of the discussion in your OP, and people are following that pattern perhaps a little unconsciously. For instance, Somegamer's talking about players not ponying up creative input, and people are like, "Aha! There's that snide assumption that trad players aren't creative!" But the fact is, she's responding to your initial portrait of players who can't even name their character; that seems to be a fair target for "they're not contributing creatively to the game." Hell, that misunderstanding ain't not even your fault, Pundit; I just think the discussion is becoming polarized by a lack of contextual awareness on some folks' parts.

Peace,
-Joel

PS Somegamer: welcome to the site!

At the risk of quoting a long post with a short comment, good post Joel, I largely agree with your points.

Quote from: Ian NobleWhatever, James.  My experiences with D&D have always been like that.  With multiple groups.  I've never heard anything different from my friends' experiences either.

D&D is just as rigid as most story-games only with a big difference in goals.

I'm sorry for you.  Those must be horrible.  If I were you, I would just change over to WoW.  I mean, why go through all the trouble when you could just pay 9.95 a month and bang on your drum all day?

If your assertion is true, how could I have experienced what I have? I'll give you a hint, your assertion is wrong.

Quote from: Ian NobleThanks!

Alas, I can't say the same for you: you're already labeled in my book.

I'll be losing sleep over this tonight.

Quote from: BalbinusPlayer empowerment has fuck all to do with whether players have narrative control, and any argument that it does is just someone trying to coopt the language.

This is truth.

Quote from: MelinglorI think there's something else going on with this tread,too, slightly related to the above: You set the initial tenor of the discussion in your OP, and people are following that pattern perhaps a little unconsciously. For instance, Somegamer's talking about players not ponying up creative input, and people are like, "Aha! There's that snide assumption that trad players aren't creative!" But the fact is, she's responding to your initial portrait of players who can't even name their character; that seems to be a fair target for "they're not contributing creatively to the game." Hell, that misunderstanding ain't not even your fault, Pundit; I just think the discussion is becoming polarized by a lack of contextual awareness on some folks' parts.

Joel,

I'm responding to this because, as far as I can tell, I'm the first one responded to the creativity comments. I want you to know that you made me concerned enough that I went back and read through the thread to see if I had, indeed, made that leap. I would request you do the same. And please pay attention to how the conversation progresses.

I actually try to point out how somegammers statements might be taken wrong. The attempts at clarification become a generalization about traditional players not creatively contributing.  The referenced quote from the OP was not the one that mentioned not being able to name a character. Now perhaps she didn't intend to make this leap, but it was not a leap that I made.

It should also be noted that in her first post (the one that starts out "Sooo...") it's somegamer that sets up the dichotomy.  I didn't make the connection until she made the comment about people being cowed and afraid to contribute.

Also, please note that once somegamer makes the differentiation between "creative contribution" and "player empowerment" I, personally, back off.  Players of all kinds of games contribute creativity in a thousand levels and variations. The idea that "player empowerment" leads to, or facilitates more, creative contribution was something, however, that I felt need to be challenged/clarified.

Unfortunately, Mr. Noble has persisted in this view.

Hope that helps,
Jim

Quote from: Ian NobleIn D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds.  If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

By D&D you mean D&D 3.x here... and maybe late 2E. But you know from Old Geezer's and Calithena's and many other people's posts that that is not nearly the whole story.

I'm playing B/X D&D right now. We generated our PCs by rolling 3d6 in order. My Thief has Dex 14, Int 6, Cha 17. Male bimbo, optimized for fun play but not for combat exactly. My Fighter has Str 13, Int 13, Cha 5. A 5'2" Quasimodo with a warrior soul and a heart of gold. Optimized build? Fuck no!

Gah!  Pierce beat me to it. :)

I know it's not the popular thing to say to people who really dig D&D 3.x... but in a lot of ways it really is a different game.  

Quote from: Ian NobleIn D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds. If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

For 3.x, I can't entirely disagree with this.  For earlier versions, it's not true at all.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBy D&D you mean D&D 3.x here... and maybe late 2E. But you know from Old Geezer's and Calithena's and many other people's posts that that is not nearly the whole story.

I'm playing B/X D&D right now. We generated our PCs by rolling 3d6 in order. My Thief has Dex 14, Int 6, Cha 17. Male bimbo, optimized for fun play but not for combat exactly. My Fighter has Str 13, Int 13, Cha 5. A 5'2" Quasimodo with a warrior soul and a heart of gold. Optimized build? Fuck no!

Pierce,

I would quibble a bit here with the implication.  Particularly because I took my AD&D Cleric and used him, almost verbatim, as the basis for my major 3.5 Living Greyhawk character - and trust me when I tell you he's not optimized. He's certainly more powerful than 3d6 in order, but that's the rules of LG, not D&D.

At the last convention, I played with some guys from Minnesota. To a much greater degree than I, these guys were tactically oriented. Amazingly they did not get upset when I played this less-than-optimal build in a less-than optimal way and, to some extent, caused the death of one of their characters (because I, as a cleric of St Cuthbert, stayed to protect a weaker ward rather than race across to save his Tank).

Which goes to my other point about the rigidity of D&D.  I played at a table with guys from another state that I never met; some played power attack this or spiked chain that while others at the table were..less optimized. This experience should never occur if the theory that D&D is rigidly geared toward  optimization is true.

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: Ian NobleAnd furthermore, traditional-model games aim for the problem-solver players -- those who had nothing to the mix creatively or socially.

That doesn't make any sense.  Creativity can be seen as a kind of problem solving.  All tabletop games are inherently social.  Maybe you're equating Tactical Wargamer with "problem solver" and Improv Actor with "creative"?  Even then I still don't agree.

Quote from: Ian NobleIt seems as though trad-model players like those that frequent these forums are pissed and angry that their hobby now has let the "cool kids" in.

Let me tell you, from someone who runs a convention now dominated by story-gamers (Strategicon in Los Angeles), these aren't cool kids. They're just as dorky and foolish and fun and moody as everyone else. They're just looking for another player style.

I can't speak for anyone else... but I'm pretty sure nobody thought story-gamers were any cooler than any other gamer nerds.  With the possible exception of some of the story-gamers. :D

James, yes. My now defunct 3.x group didn't follow the Build paradigm either. Thing is, that paradigm is hardwired into the 3.x rules as it was not into earlier editions. It comes naturally. You still can play the game against that grain, but that's just it.

On a general note, Ian is actually a Good Man (TM). He just has this thang about D&D... well, and Exalted, which is his saving grace. ;)

Hi, Skatch!

Quote from: James J SkachAlso, please note that once somegamer makes the differentiation between "creative contribution" and "player empowerment" I, personally, back off.  Players of all kinds of games contribute creativity in a thousand levels and variations. The idea that "player empowerment" leads to, or facilitates more, creative contribution was something, however, that I felt need to be challenged/clarified.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. You did back off, and the discussion's thr richer for you and somegamer's reasoned exchange. My apologies; on review of the thread it seems my brain blended yours and John Morrow's responses into one.(And John, not trying to callyou out, but thanks to this incoherence between me and James I guess I gotta clarify).

But, James. . .

Quote from: James J SkachThe referenced quote from the OP was not the one that mentioned not being able to name a character.

Uh. . .yeah, it, uh. . .actually was. Like this:

Quote from: RPGPunditOften, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.  Hell, many of my players get a bit flustered at having to name their character;

And then:

Quote from: RPGPunditBut think about it: how many of the others have you seen getting totally stuck on the choice of a name for their character?

So there you have it. Though actually, your point is somewhat apt because my post was as much a message to somegamer to be careful not to let the conversation slide along those polarizing and inflammatory lines, as it was to those debating her. And you are right that her first post references "creatively contributing" but again I think that's likely at least partly an artifact of where Pundy drew the initial line ("creating characters").

All in all, I think perhaps my contribution is warped by having to play catchup (you guys are too fast for me! I have a frickin', job, and I'm trying to prepare for actual play!) with the thread,and some of my feelings being slightly outdated by the time I post them. Oh well.

Peace,
-Joel

[Edited because my spacebar isconspiring againstme. Yeah.Like that.]

Quote from: Pierce InverarityJames, yes. My now defunct 3.x group didn't follow the Build paradigm either. Thing is, that paradigm is hardwired into the 3.x rules as it was not into earlier editions. It comes naturally. You still can play the game against that grain, but that's just it.

yeah, I could see saying it's more hardwired than it has been in the past - probably the result/drawback of unified mechanics, IMHO. But I think it is natural if you tend follow the CR/ECL/etc formulas and such, again IMHO.  Yet again, IMHO, if you stick to the core three and don't worry about the suggested formula for encounters you're playing closer to earlier versions than many think...

Quote from: MelinglorHi, Skatch!

Dammit Joel, there's no 't'. :)

And just to clarify, look at post 25 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=153834&postcount=25)

What I meant was that when somegammer responded, she did not reference the line about not being able to name characters. It might have been the kind of gamer she meant, but it wasn't in the quote she used so it wasn't clear....

Quote from: BalbinusPlayer empowerment has fuck all to do with whether players have narrative control, and any argument that it does is just someone trying to coopt the language.

Thank you, B. That is quite true. I move we strike the phrase 'player empowerment' from the lexicon.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat I meant was that when somegammer responded, she did not reference the line about not being able to name characters. It might have been the kind of gamer she meant, but it wasn't in the quote she used so it wasn't clear....

I see what you're saying. My perspective (which is admitedly, rather conjectural) was that the "naming characters" remark was coloring the whole issue, which was finally surfacing in later references to it. But I think we're on the same page.

And because I'm tired of making a bajillion posts to the same thread,I'll tack this on:

Quote from: BalbinusAt the risk of quoting a long post with a short comment, good post Joel, I largely agree with your points.

Thanks for the kind words, Max! Your point is also top-notch,as others have been acknowledging.

....

Wait a minute, shouldn't I be telling someone to fuck themselves at this point in the thread? I don't wanna have a breach in protocol. . .;)

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Ian NobleIn D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds.  If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

D&D does not require optimized builds to make the game work.  D&D also does not penalize you for being imaginative in a fight, or even making sub-optimal decisions because that's what your character would do.  You can do all of those things in D&D.  Based on why I read from the character creation section of Burning Empires, if you try to create a character without the requisite plot hooks, the GM should berate you and tell you to go play X-Wing.

Quote from: Ian NobleIt presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

Actually, it doesn't.  While I don't think it was entirely successful in achieving what it was designed to do, Ryan Dancey rather clearly explained that D&D 3e was designed to work with multiple styles of play. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html)  In fact, that's one of the sources of the complaints about 3.5 making miniatures seem mandatory to many people who would prefer not to use them.

Quote from: Ian NobleWhatever, James.  My experiences with D&D have always been like that.  With multiple groups.  I've never heard anything different from my friends' experiences either.

And in my experience, D&D has rarely been like that.  With multiple groups, including one campaign run by one of the authors of Castle Whiterock in a group with only one person I'd ever role-played with before.  Anecdotal evidence varies so much from person to person in this hobby that it's a very weak foundation to build on.

Quote from: MelinglorAlso, the Dogs players do NOT get to declare reality or override your GM background facts.Here's a post from Vincent Baker (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24412.msg238634#msg238634) correcting me in no uncertain terms on whether the players can contradict the facts I've prepared for the town. Short answer: They can't. "The only power the players have to judge or decide anything, anything at all, bindingly, is by having their characters act and then backing it up with dice."

OK, two points:

1: OK, the players roll dice, play the little dice-fighting game, and succeed. Then do they get to change the background facts?

2: This is actually somewhat contradictory to the message in the rulebook - and several AP posts by Baker and by people who've played with Baker - where it's clear that it actually is up to the players to interpret and if necessary make up the dogma of the church on an ad hoc basis. (The next Dogs game I play in I'm totally going to have my initiation conflict be "In initiation I convinced the elders of the faith that it's a-OK for Dogs to summon demons to serve them in the execution of their duty", and then dumping all of my relationship dice into hardcore demons.)

Warthur,

1. The "little dice-fighting game" (which is an analogue to the the "Roll init, now move, now roll to attack" little dice-fighting game) lets you enact the will of your character. "I want to convince the Steward to enforce same-sex marriage." "I want to expose the blacksmith as a Sorceror before the whole assembly." "I want to shoot that lying liar's face off." in other words, "Having their characters act,and then backing it up with dice."

2. The players are free to make any judgments they want--again, through their characters. The special clause is there to say that nobody can judge your character but you. Nobody can say "you can't shoot that lying liar's face off; you're a Dog." Instead,they go: "Whoa. Your Dog just shot his face off. He's a cold mutherfucker." And you go, "A-yup. He's becoming quite the monster for his ideals, isn't he?" (Or conversely, nobody can say you have to shoot him,if you're doing the merciful or conciliatory thing.)

You ARE supposed to make up specific doctrines on the fly, because Vincent didn't want a set of rules that you have to follow to play right. The Faith isn't a strait-jacket on roleplaying. The game does provide a nice overview of what the Faith believes, particularly in terms of social roles, and sin and its supernatural consequences, plus the duty of the Dogs and other officiaries of the Faith. And so you decide what your Dog thinks in her heart is right, and back it up with specific Scriptures that you make up or swipe from the real Bible or whatever. . .just like people of vastly different views do in real life.

If the above looks like stupid or boring or broken shit to you, that's fine. I'm not trying to sell you or anyone on the game here. I just wanted to stick up for what the game actually does,and maybe explain its purpose in doing so.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Melinglor1. The "little dice-fighting game" (which is an analogue to the the "Roll init, now move, now roll to attack" little dice-fighting game) lets you enact the will of your character. "I want to convince the Steward to enforce same-sex marriage." "I want to expose the blacksmith as a Sorceror before the whole assembly." "I want to shoot that lying liar's face off." in other words, "Having their characters act,and then backing it up with dice."

Yes, but:

- If the player succeeds in exposing the blacksmith, the blacksmith is exposed, even if he wasn't actually a sorcerer.
- If the player knew damn well that the blacksmith wasn't a sorcerer, and was exposing him to make a point, that's fair enough.
- But what if the player was genuinely convinced that the blacksmith was a sorcerer? Then, if the player later uncovers evidence of the blacksmith's innocence, how can the player fail to take that as an implicit condemnation of his PC's actions?

The thing is, Joel, I don't see how it's useful to say "The GM is banned from directly saying that a PC's actions were bad by saying `that's not how Lawful Good people act', but he's perfectly free to indirectly say that by using his control of the scenario to make that PC's actions have awful, horrible, life-blighting and unforeseen consequences." If anything, the second scenario is just as bad at the first: it's the equivalent of the GM slapping the PC in the face with the in-game situation and saying "Bad Dog! Look at what you did!" Either you're allowed to do that in Dogs, in which case the injunction against judging the PCs actions is utterly meaningless, or you're not, in which case the PCs are absolutely unassailable and none of their actions can have consequences that they didn't intend.

Quote from: BalbinusPlayer empowerment has fuck all to do with whether players have narrative control, and any argument that it does is just someone trying to coopt the language.

Exactly -- the interesting question is why co-opt the language?

Why spin shared narrative control as "empowerment?"

I think a lot of the discussion about empowerment is really about trust: a good deal of the indie dialog isn't about better stories (because indie games actually don't give better stories) or higher-quality play.

It's about mitigating the GM role for players who can't, won't, or don't trust the folks they play games with.

Of course putting that way would be fundamentally negative (sometimes people do put it that way -- and they use analogies of abuse or sadomasochism), so it's much prettier to claim that shared models are in some way an empowerment or quality thing.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Exactly -- the interesting question is why co-opt the language?

Why spin shared narrative control as "empowerment?"

I think a lot of the discussion about empowerment is really about trust: a good deal of the indie dialog isn't about better stories (because indie games actually don't give better stories) or higher-quality play.

It's about mitigating the GM role for players who can't, won't, or don't trust the folks they play games with.

Of course putting that way would be fundamentally negative (sometimes people do put it that way -- and they use analogies of abuse or sadomasochism), so it's much prettier to claim that shared models are in some way an empowerment or quality thing.

Cheers,
-E.

In my experience the language gets coopted for two reasons, neither of which incidentally is malevolent in nature:

1.  Crappy play experiences with railroading GMs.

2.  An interest in sharing narrative control that gets frustrated by GMs who think the game should follow their plot.  That latter element is important, as someone who wanted shared narrative control in a player empowered game would realise they weren't getting all they wanted but would likely not have a shitty experience into the bargain.

IMO the whole Forge movement is born of some people having had some truly shitty GMs, nothing more.

Edit:  And you're right on the trust point, a large amount of story game design seems to be about using the rules to address trust issues at the table.  Personally I just play with people I trust, and we therefore don't need all that stuff.

Quote- If the player succeeds in exposing the blacksmith, the blacksmith is exposed, even if he wasn't actually a sorcerer.

I don't know where you get this from. If the blacksmith isn't a sorcerer, the GM can just say, "No, he isn't a sorcerer. How about the stakes are you just try and convince people he's a sorcerer?"

I think you can see that's a rather different thing. If the GM's doing his job, the player ought to know whether the NPC is a sorcerer or not. It's not Call of Cthulhu. The GM is supposed to be revealing everything in play so the players can make decisions.

QuoteThe thing is, Joel, I don't see how it's useful to say "The GM is banned from directly saying that a PC's actions were bad by saying `that's not how Lawful Good people act', but he's perfectly free to indirectly say that by using his control of the scenario to make that PC's actions have awful, horrible, life-blighting and unforeseen consequences." If anything, the second scenario is just as bad at the first: it's the equivalent of the GM slapping the PC in the face with the in-game situation and saying "Bad Dog! Look at what you did!" Either you're allowed to do that in Dogs, in which case the injunction against judging the PCs actions is utterly meaningless, or you're not, in which case the PCs are absolutely unassailable and none of their actions can have consequences that they didn't intend.

Vincent said something to the effect of "If you're doing something like that to play 'gotcha', you're a bad Dogs GM. If you're doing it because your players will enjoy it, you're a great Dogs GM."

Just remember what you're supposed to do.

Quote from: lumpleyDo the Dogs feel betrayed by the NPCs? Then you're fine.

Do the Dogs' players feel betrayed by you, the GM? Then you've cheated.

Quote from: BalbinusIMO the whole Forge movement is born of some people having had some truly shitty GMs, nothing more.

Edit:  And you're right on the trust point, a large amount of story game design seems to be about using the rules to address trust issues at the table.  Personally I just play with people I trust, and we therefore don't need all that stuff.

Look, I wish you'd stop saying that. It's not true for me, and therefore it's presumably not true for many others. I came to these games as a GM who has played with old, trusted friends and had a pretty good time at it. What's more, I've told you all this before.

If you 'don't need all that stuff', why do you think PtA looks good? Something else, presumably. It shouldn't be such a stretch to see that there could be many reasons why people might like other games.

Now, I think we should stop talking about 'player empowerment' because it's a meaningless buzz-phrase.

Quote from: BalbinusIn my experience the language gets coopted for two reasons, neither of which incidentally is malevolent in nature:

1.  Crappy play experiences with railroading GMs.

2.  An interest in sharing narrative control that gets frustrated by GMs who think the game should follow their plot.  That latter element is important, as someone who wanted shared narrative control in a player empowered game would realise they weren't getting all they wanted but would likely not have a shitty experience into the bargain.

IMO the whole Forge movement is born of some people having had some truly shitty GMs, nothing more.

Edit:  And you're right on the trust point, a large amount of story game design seems to be about using the rules to address trust issues at the table.  Personally I just play with people I trust, and we therefore don't need all that stuff.

Agreed (and I don't read you as saying this is absolute and in all-cases).

To be clear: I don't think the co-opting is malevolent; I do think it's sometimes disingenuous -- I've seen people from the indie scene (I can think of one case in John Kim's blog a year or so ago) ask (in apparent seriousness) if they could really be expected to tell people that they're responsible for their part in enjoying games (with the implication being that it was better to tell folks that evil traditional games traumatized them than to expect them to step up and be responsible for their own role in whatever on-going dysfunction they participated in).

I *do* think dropping the language of empowerment (as some pro-theory people have suggested) is the right way to go about it...

But this is the *wrong forum* to be preaching that in: empowerment comes up *here* because it's brought up in other places -- if you want to preach against sin, go amongst the sinners!

Droog, as the voice of reason in this thread, I'd ask you to go to RPG.net (if you haven't already) and let the theory people know that "player empowerment" is a poor term. You could do the same thing on Story-Games.

I'm pretty sure that once theory people stop using it, you're unlikely to see threads here.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Droog, as the voice of reason in this thread, I'd ask you to go to RPG.net (if you haven't already) and let the theory people know that "player empowerment" is a poor term. You could do the same thing on Story-Games.

I'm pretty sure that once theory people stop using it, you're unlikely to see threads here.

Don't be silly. RPG.net is way too big for any one voice to have an effect. Story Games tends to talk about specific techniques. And the Poobutt talks about anything he likes whether it's true or not.

'Theory people'! As if there were some homogenous mass of people one could point at. There are all sorts of people in all sorts of states of intellectual confusion.

Quote from: droogDon't be silly. RPG.net is way too big for any one voice to have an effect. Story Games tends to talk about specific techniques. And the Poobutt talks about anything he likes whether it's true or not.

'Theory people'! As if there were some homogenous mass of people one could point at. There are all sorts of people in all sorts of states of intellectual confusion.

Perhaps true; I'm just saying: if you're going to preach on the side of reason and righteousness, it's better to do so in places where those things are wanting. ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Perhaps true; I'm just saying: if you're going to preach on the side of reason and righteousness, it's better to do so in places where those things are wanting. ;)

You're a fine one to talk about disingenuousness. I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

Quote from: droogThere are all sorts of people in all sorts of states of intellectual confusion.

:D

I like it when people talk about me.

Quote from: droogYou're a fine one to talk about disingenuousness. I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

Sorry -- I certainly wouldn't blame you for ignoring me, but that wasn't meant to be nasty -- more playful: *I* haven't been ignoring you, and agree with at least some of what you've said here and recently otherwise.

To be clear: I agree with you and wasn't being disingenuous calling you the voice of reason: "empowerment" as a buzzword has somewhat banal history. Your suggestion that we ignore it is a good one made in any forum.

In the spirit of not-trying to piss you off, I owe you a response to the theory-people thing -- certainly the specific dogma isn't unified (and it's less so now that it was 2 years ago). Still: the unifying thread that I see in these discussions (including, on topic, the use of the word "empowerment") is the belief that indie games / gamers are superior to traditional games/gamers. In that sense I see there as being a coherent body of thought behind a significant portion of the theory community (c.f. IPR's marketing slogans).

Anyway, if you don't feel you're superior because of your gaming preferences, this community doesn't include you, and you're on the righteous side of the gaming divide along with me (e.g. people who think they're superior for other reasons ;) )

Anyway, feel free to return to your regularly scheduled debate.
-E.

Quote from: droogLook, I wish you'd stop saying that. It's not true for me, and therefore it's presumably not true for many others. I came to these games as a GM who has played with old, trusted friends and had a pretty good time at it. What's more, I've told you all this before.

If you 'don't need all that stuff', why do you think PtA looks good? Something else, presumably. It shouldn't be such a stretch to see that there could be many reasons why people might like other games.

Now, I think we should stop talking about 'player empowerment' because it's a meaningless buzz-phrase.

Sorry Droog, to be honest I tend not to think of you as a storygamer, possibly as I don't really think of Heroquest as a storygame.

PTA is a fair point, in that many storygames don't fit my description and therefore I was being too general, but I would note it's not a system which tries to legislate for a lack of trust between the participants in the same way say Burning Wheel does.

BW always strikes me as being very similar to Rolemaster in many ways, I don't see it as being a story game in anything more than branding personally, it looks to me like a fairly solid trad rpg.

Quote from: droogI don't know where you get this from. If the blacksmith isn't a sorcerer, the GM can just say, "No, he isn't a sorcerer. How about the stakes are you just try and convince people he's a sorcerer?"

I would say that the stakes either way are whether or not the PC convinces the townsfolk that the blacksmith is a sorcerer; it's just that in one situation he is and the other he isn't.

I think it is problematic to expect the GM to up and say "Hold on, this guy isn't actually a sorcerer" at the beginning of the conflict. It would seem to a) utterly sabotage any investigative element the game might have, b) put the player in the always-awkward situation of having to separate IC and OOC knowledge of the blacksmith's status (even though many players can do that just fine, I consider it polite to avoid putting them in a situation where they have to), and I am not sure it is necessarily stated or implied in the Dogs rules that that is what you should do in such a situation.

QuoteVincent said something to the effect of "If you're doing something like that to play 'gotcha', you're a bad Dogs GM. If you're doing it because your players will enjoy it, you're a great Dogs GM."

Ah, but isn't the whole point of Narrativist systems is to create a structure whereby the GM can't play "gotcha"? And what happens if your players enjoy it but at the same time the GM's saying "Gotcha! Your PCs are assholes!"?

Dogs is not an investigative game.  In Dogs the players should know very quickly what is going on in town, the point of the game is what they choose to do about it.

So, in Dogs you don't struggle to work out that the blacksmith is a sorceror, you find out very quickly who the sorceror is and then try to deal with that knowledge.

The game is very explicit about this, it has clear advice about resisting the temptation to make the players work out what is going on as that's not what the game is about and it doesn't work so well for it.

Quote from: WarthurI would say that the stakes either way are whether or not the PC convinces the townsfolk that the blacksmith is a sorcerer; it's just that in one situation he is and the other he isn't.

If you know the blacksmith is not a sorcerer and you still try to convince the townsfolk he is, that is a decision made with full knowledge. It therefore makes a statement about either you or your character or both.

QuoteI think it is problematic to expect the GM to up and say "Hold on, this guy isn't actually a sorcerer" at the beginning of the conflict. It would seem to a) utterly sabotage any investigative element the game might have, b) put the player in the always-awkward situation of having to separate IC and OOC knowledge of the blacksmith's status (even though many players can do that just fine, I consider it polite to avoid putting them in a situation where they have to), and I am not sure it is necessarily stated or implied in the Dogs rules that that is what you should do in such a situation.

As Balbinus points out, DitV is not an investigative game. It's a game of moral decision. It is the GM's duty to fully reveal the town.

As for politeness, it would be polite to ensure that the players know what they're getting into before they get to the blacksmith. Before they start playing the game, indeed.

QuoteAh, but isn't the whole point of Narrativist systems is to create a structure whereby the GM can't play "gotcha"? And what happens if your players enjoy it but at the same time the GM's saying "Gotcha! Your PCs are assholes!"?

No, the social aspect is always paramount. If you enjoy it, you enjoy it. Some people would enjoy the 'gotcha', and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people wouldn't enjoy playing DitV at all, and there's nothing wrong with that either. But it's pretty clear how it's supposed to go.

Quote from: -E.In the spirit of not-trying to piss you off, I owe you a response to the theory-people thing -- certainly the specific dogma isn't unified (and it's less so now that it was 2 years ago). Still: the unifying thread that I see in these discussions (including, on topic, the use of the word "empowerment") is the belief that indie games / gamers are superior to traditional games/gamers. In that sense I see there as being a coherent body of thought behind a significant portion of the theory community (c.f. IPR's marketing slogans).

Anyway, if you don't feel you're superior because of your gaming preferences, this community doesn't include you, and you're on the righteous side of the gaming divide along with me (e.g. people who think they're superior for other reasons ;) )

Okay, E. Until you show me otherwise, I'll take this at face value.

The thing is, almost everybody feels that their ways are superior. Look at almost everything Settembrini has ever posted, for an extreme example. It's pretty hard to point at any one group and say that they're righteous. The most you can say is that some people are snottier than others. That doesn't seem to depend on what they're actually playing or talking about.

When you get to talking about a huge, heterogenous body of people like RPG.net, all generalisations are moot. I see a whole lot of people talking about things they know very little about, which is nothing new.

I wouldn't call myself righteous. I just like to be precise and stick to what I know. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but when they cross my arbitrary line of respect I start hitting.

I'm a blacksmith and a sorcerer. It drives the ladies wild.

QuoteAs Balbinus points out, DitV is not an investigative game. It's a game of moral decision. It is the GM's duty to fully reveal the town.

This is clear from the explanations given here, and from various forum posts by Vincent Baker. I would submit that it isn't clear from the core rulebook; certainly, of the three different GMs (including myself) who independently ran Dogs one-shots in our local gaming scene, all of them ran it as an investigative game. I'm also not sure I would enjoy it if the situation were simply presented to me on a silver plate.

QuoteNo, the social aspect is always paramount. If you enjoy it, you enjoy it. Some people would enjoy the 'gotcha', and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people wouldn't enjoy playing DitV at all, and there's nothing wrong with that either. But it's pretty clear how it's supposed to go.

Again, this is apparent from Baker's forum posts but if you judge the game on the basis of the rulebook this is far from clear.

At this point, I don't see that Dogs does anything especially revolutionary which couldn't have been achieved by writing an essay about how lame "gotcha" moments are and how GMs should be more careful about how they use them.

Quote from: WarthurThis is clear from the explanations given here, and from various forum posts by Vincent Baker. I would submit that it isn't clear from the core rulebook; certainly, of the three different GMs (including myself) who independently ran Dogs one-shots in our local gaming scene, all of them ran it as an investigative game. I'm also not sure I would enjoy it if the situation were simply presented to me on a silver plate.

Whether you would enjoy it or not is one thing. But the book is pretty clear:

Quotep138
ACTIVELY REVEAL THE TOWN IN PLAY
The town you've made has secrets. It has, quite likely, terrible secrets — blood and sex and murder and damnation.

But you the GM, you don't have secrets a'tall. Instead, you have cool things — bloody, sexy, murderous, damned cool things — that you can't wait to share.

There's this interesting hump I have to get over every time I GM Dogs — maybe it'll go away eventually. It's like this:

The PCs arrive in town. I have someone meet them. They ask how things are going. The person says that, well, things are going okay, mostly. The PCs say, "mostly?"

And I'm like "uh oh. They're going to figure out what's wrong in the town! Better stonewall. Poker face: on!" And then I'm like "wait a sec. I want them to figure out what's wrong in the town. In fact, I want to show them what's wrong! Otherwise they'll wander around waiting for me to drop them a clue, I'll have my dumb poker face on, and we'll be bored stupid the whole evening."

So instead of having the NPC say "oh no, I meant that things are going just fine, and I shut up now," I have the NPC launch into his or her tirade. "Things are awful! This person's sleeping with this other person not with me, they murdered the schoolteacher, blood pours down the meeting house walls every night!"

...Or sometimes, the NPC wants to lie, instead. That's okay! I have the NPC lie. You've watched movies. You always can tell when you're watching a movie who's lying and who's telling the truth. And wouldn't you know it, most the time the players are looking at me with skeptical looks, and I give them a little sly nod that yep, she's lying. And they get these great, mean, tooth-showing grins — because when someone lies to them, ho boy does it not work out.

Then the game goes somewhere.

Quote from: WarthurAgain, this is apparent from Baker's forum posts but if you judge the game on the basis of the rulebook this is far from clear.

At this point, I don't see that Dogs does anything especially revolutionary which couldn't have been achieved by writing an essay about how lame "gotcha" moments are and how GMs should be more careful about how they use them.

Whether it 'does something revolutionary' isn't so much the point. I won't quote another block of text, but if you read 'A Dog's Authority' (p44), 'Your Character's Conscience and Your Own (p45), the comments at the end of the 'Town Creation' chapter on p124, and 'Don't Play God' on pp143-4, it's quite clear what's expected of the GM. As clear as an essay (and where would that go?), which might have been ignored as well.

Quote from: droogWhether you would enjoy it or not is one thing. But the book is pretty clear:

I have to agree with droog on this one.  While many, many, many "rules" about how to "correctly" play the game can only be gained by pouring through Vince's web postings, this isn't one of them.

Quote from: James J SkachReally, jgants, the issue is that you can't have all three at the table at the same time.  In order to have a fulfilling experience, you must focus on one type of player and tailor the rules strictly to their level of play.

Games that do not do this are Incoherent.

I have had an enjoyable mix of players before...but then, I can't say my players have all fit into the above stereotypes, either.

Either way, I've had games where casual players run right alongside hardcore gamers, because the hardcore gamers understood that the casuals weren't there for the same reasons.

God, DiTV sucks ass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditGod, DiTV sucks ass.

So you've said.  Repeatedly.

!i!

Quote from: jgantsI have to agree with droog on this one.  While many, many, many "rules" about how to "correctly" play the game can only be gained by pouring through Vince's web postings, this isn't one of them.

Yup, Droog is right.  I recall reading that section because Vince was right to write it, I would have expected the players to have to work to find out what was going on and he goes to some pains to say that natural as that desire may be it won't work for this game.

Dogs, for whatever faults it may have, is actually a very clearly written game IMO.  My issues with it are about the dice mechanic which I hated, nothing else, for me my objections to Dogs are ones of pure personal preference and are not in any way a view on its merits generally.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSo you've said.  Repeatedly.

!i!

Yes, but I continue to be reminded, and cannot get over, just HOW MUCH it truly sucks.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian NobleFor me, you can take my trad-model, GM-centric games out of my cold, dead hands. I'll never give them up for GM-less improv acting games. However, I'm ripping things out of story-games and using them as spice to my trad-model meal; to be sure, it's making my games better!

I'm open to play a GM-less game (like Universalis) from time to time, and I enjoy the variety of it. But most of my gaming is like Ian's, adn we're pretty happy with it.
 
There are many good ideas to be found in those new designs. Others, less so. But my gaming's improved since I contacted them, and some techniques and ideas have been useful, just as I found some good ideas and techniques and Vampire around 1991, that improved my gaming. And that's all for me.

welcome to my world!

i personally don't udnerstand why, if it's ok for the gm to do ALL the work, the player's can't get off their arses and make some kind of effort regarding their characters.

yet every time i have asked about this people just complain because it seems like 'homework' or they automatically infer that i want them to go away and write something to rival the lord of the rings in depth!

Quote from: signoftheserpentwelcoem to my world!

i personally don't udnerstand why, if it's ok for the gm to do ALL the work, the player's can't get off their arses and make some kind of effort regarding their characters.

Because they regard it as work. And if you asked them, they would probably say that you shouldn't be doing any GM chores that you consider work, either.

Let's face it - most GMs like to work on game material on their own time. It's kind of a sub-hobby in itself. We just get frustrated when our fellow players aren't as enthusiastic and committed as we are.

The only time I ever REALLY had that problem was with every time I tried to run a Buffy or Angel game.

I would help the players make characters a week or so in advance, then spend the next few days giggling madly as entire seasons sprang forth from my mind, only to have the games die after a session...sometimes two.

Quote from: AosI'm a blacksmith and a sorcerer. It drives the ladies wild.

yes, but if i was a carpenter...

Quote from: droogOkay, E. Until you show me otherwise, I'll take this at face value.

The thing is, almost everybody feels that their ways are superior. Look at almost everything Settembrini has ever posted, for an extreme example. It's pretty hard to point at any one group and say that they're righteous. The most you can say is that some people are snottier than others. That doesn't seem to depend on what they're actually playing or talking about.

When you get to talking about a huge, heterogenous body of people like RPG.net, all generalisations are moot. I see a whole lot of people talking about things they know very little about, which is nothing new.

I wouldn't call myself righteous. I just like to be precise and stick to what I know. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but when they cross my arbitrary line of respect I start hitting.

You can take it at face value -- it's what I believe.

I also want to be clear that I think everyone's right in one sense -- most people enjoy their play and find whatever approach they take superior... for *them*

That's called "having an opinion" and everyone's entitled. I don't even have a problem with people suggesting the games they love (although I'm dubious that Wushu and DiTV are *really* the ultimate games for any genre).

What's problematic is when people start dictating to others -- or claiming that their approach is in some way objectively superior. And that's what the "theory" people I alluded to do. A lot of RPG theory tries to form a framework for this kind of dialog (the whole concept of coherence... hell, the whole concept of Creative Agendas, etc.)

There are a lot of people who buy into this to one degree or another. They may not adhere to a coherent body of thought, but check out any thread on Story Games, The Forge, or Knife Fight where people ponder the nature of traditional gaming, traditional gamers, or, say, immersion.

You'll find lots of speculation that's amazingly offensive and complete bullshit, couched in the pseudo-academic language of RPG theory (or sometimes not -- some people just use terms like "immature") -- an on-topic example is the  claim that shared GM authority is, in some way, "empowering" and the subsequent wondering about those sheeple-players who prefer the traditional model (are they submissive? Or actual masochists? Or maybe just ignorant and superstitious -- RPG theory has been trying hard to explain this phenomena for years!)

If you're not buying it (and it sounds like you're not), then we're on the same page.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.There are a lot of people who buy into this to one degree or another. They may not adhere to a coherent body of thought, but check out any thread on Story Games, The Forge, or Knife Fight where people ponder the nature of traditional gaming, traditional gamers, or, say, immersion.

It would help if people didn't try to explain things that they don't understand or like.  And I'm not simply claiming that they don't understand or like it because I'm guessing.  They often clearly state that's how they feel and then go on to speculate, anyway.

Quote from: John MorrowIt would help if people didn't try to explain things that they don't understand or like. And I'm not simply claiming that they don't understand or like it because I'm guessing. They often clearly state that's how they feel and then go on to speculate, anyway.

Add to that the compulsive need to invent words or redefine normal words into abnormal uses... :(

Quote from: John MorrowFor those GMs out there, when I ask you if something is in the room, I don't expect you to "Say yes or roll the dice".  I expect you to tell me if that thing exists in the room or not and "No" is a perfectly valid response.

What strikes me about this is the feeling I get whenever I read "Say yes or roll the dice." that there's a hidden tag at the end:  ", dickweed."   In other words it always gives me the feeling that it's telling me that my traditional mode of GMing makes me an tyrannical monster who is only GMing so that I can have a chance of abusing poor miserable players.   That underlying assumption and implication is what I find disagreeable.   But I'm not sure if I'm just over-reacting, and imagining the implication, or if its really part and parcel of that form of game instruction.

Quote from: VBWyrdeWhat strikes me about this is the feeling I get whenever I read "Say yes or roll the dice." that there's a hidden tag at the end:  ", dickweed."   In other words it always gives me the feeling that it's telling me that my traditional mode of GMing makes me an tyrannical monster who is only GMing so that I can have a chance of abusing poor miserable players.   That underlying assumption and implication is what I find disagreeable.   But I'm not sure if I'm just over-reacting, and imagining the implication, or if its really part and parcel of that form of game instruction.

I get the feeling that the Dogs GMing philosophy is based on Vincent's own tendencies which were unfun for him (See the excerpt that Droog posted, "Actively Reveal the Town in Play"). So if there's a pointing finger, it's aimed squarely at himself.

He also doesn't claim that any particular habit or procedure or mindset is sucky without explaining why he thinks it's sucky, usually by way of example. If you're reading it thinking, "well, I've done that thing, and it didn't suck the way he describes," then hey, awesome! But I'm not sure how that equates to  "Vincent's calling me a dickweed."

So yeah, I guess the short answer is, I'd say you're probably imagining the implication, or at least a lot of it.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorI get the feeling that the Dogs GMing philosophy is based on Vincent's own tendencies which were unfun for him (See the excerpt that Droog posted, "Actively Reveal the Town in Play"). So if there's a pointing finger, it's aimed squarely at himself.

So the Indie storytelling folks are spotlight hogs who couldn't resist railroading and abuse of GM fiat when they played traditional games. So now they devise systems where nobody is trusted with that authority. It's all making more sense now; the assumption is everybody has a story they desperately want to tell, and so rules are put in place to structure how and how much everyone gets to add to the 'shared' story.

I still don't get why these folks think their own dysfunctional experiences with traditional games are so widespread that narrative games will ever be more than an exotic offshoot of the hobby. I suppose it's difficult to admit that most of the mouthbreathers who play games like D&D are sufficiently socialized and flexible to work through authority issues, while the clever chaps at the forge can't handle assymetrical roles without abusing them.

Quote from: HaffrungSo the Indie storytelling folks are spotlight hogs who couldn't resist railroading and abuse of GM fiat when they played traditional games. So now they devise systems where nobody is trusted with that authority. It's all making more sense now; the assumption is everybody has a story they desperately want to tell, and so rules are put in place to structure how and how much everyone gets to add to the 'shared' story.

I still don't get why these folks think their own dysfunctional experiences with traditional games are so widespread that narrative games will ever be more than an exotic offshoot of the hobby. I suppose it's difficult to admit that most of the mouthbreathers who play games like D&D are sufficiently socialized and flexible to work through authority issues, while the clever chaps at the forge can't handle assymetrical roles without abusing them.

But Haff--you've got direct testimony in this very thread that people found that explicit direction useful. From Balbinus, for example. From Warthur, implicitly; because he did approach the game as investigative. It's not that it's inherently dysfunctional, it's that it's a long-established way of approaching GMing. 'Revealing the secrets' is not even an issue of authority.

Quote from: signoftheserpentwelcome to my world!

i personally don't udnerstand why, if it's ok for the gm to do ALL the work, the player's can't get off their arses and make some kind of effort regarding their characters.

yet every time i have asked about this people just complain because it seems like 'homework' or they automatically infer that i want them to go away and write something to rival the lord of the rings in depth!

What kind of effort do you want the players to put in?

I ask because I've discovered that working out any sort of background for my characters before play really doesn't work for me. The characters end up incorporating assumptions that don't jell with the assumptions about the world the GM brings to the table. That means the character just doesn't feel right to me. Whereas if I work out the details of the character during play, they always seem to fit better and to feel like they're a part of the world they exist in.

I remember back in 2001, after about a decade of playing games with point-build character creation systems, we pulled Call of Cthulhu off the shelf and I rolled up a character for the first time in ages. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. "Let's see... he's pretty strong... not that lucky... kind of average looking..." It was the beginning of a process of discovery about the character -- and the world he was a part of -- that continued on into play.

The message (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/81db63d48b390693?dmode=source) from rec.games.frp.advocacy John Morrow linked to back in post #33 starts off with a description of DAS and DIP characters. That stands for Design At Start and Develop In Play (or Design In Play, it's been a while and I may be misremembering). Some people like to design characters ahead of time. Others like to let them grow during play. There are some who like to do bits of each, depending on the aspect of the character. I happen to fall into the DIP category. I recall someone compared the two approaches to baking bread as opposed to making piecrust -- though I'm not sure exactly how that analogy worked, not being much of a cook myself.

Anyway, the point is both approaches are valid and can result in equally well developed characters. Alternately, either approach can also result in poorly thought-out characters who add little to a game.

Well fucking said.

Quote from: droogBut Haff--you've got direct testimony in this very thread that people found that explicit direction useful. From Balbinus, for example. From Warthur, implicitly; because he did approach the game as investigative. It's not that it's inherently dysfunctional, it's that it's a long-established way of approaching GMing. 'Revealing the secrets' is not even an issue of authority.

I didn't read Haffrung as claiming that none of the techniques or approaches he'd read were of any value to anyone; I think your reply is missing his point (or maybe just missing the bullseye): that a lot of the structure of indie games seems to be driven by dysfunctional experience and hostility toward traditional-model play.

And I think he's got a point: there *are* a lot of games and game designers that want to 'heal roleplaying' -- I'm thinking of the beginning of the GNS essay talking about tired, disheartened, gamers. I'm thinking of the testimony from other designers talking about how they, themselves, used to abuse their players before they reformed.

And I'm thinking of the tendency to take a generally good idea ('Say Yes' or 'Let it Ride') and turn it into an absolute rule wrapped in editorial manifesto.

The idea that these games are meant, in some part, to prevent social dysfunction isn't a misinterpretation: it's part of the indie movement (and the source of the empowerment language -- there's a vocal portion of the indie community that's bought into the tyrannical GM stuff).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.The idea that these games are meant, in some part, to prevent social dysfunction isn't a misinterpretation: it's part of the indie movement (and the source of the empowerment language -- there's a vocal portion of the indie community that's bought into the tyrannical GM stuff).

Again, and tiredly, people get things wrong, they vulgarise, they get excited, they repeat what they're told. But it's my understanding that I can't discuss this point without having the whole thread moved to OT. Sorry!

Quote from: -E.And I think he's got a point: there *are* a lot of games and game designers that want to 'heal roleplaying' -- I'm thinking of the beginning of the GNS essay talking about tired, disheartened, gamers. I'm thinking of the testimony from other designers talking about how they, themselves, used to abuse their players before they reformed.

I really don't see why this is a problem.  Innovation starts with people that are dissatisfied with the current way of doing things.  And the very fact that any kind of indie movement exists suggests that they are not alone.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI really don't see why this is a problem.  Innovation starts with people that are dissatisfied with the current way of doing things.  And the very fact that any kind of indie movement exists suggests that they are not alone.

No, they're not alone. But neither are their experiences indicative of roleplaying as a whole. The traditional model is not in need of salvation from brave theorists. Nor is storytelling a more sophisticated way to play RPGs. If the folks in the indie movement didn't espouse their approach as the cool way to play RPGs  (and if the movement wasn't dominated by pretentious wankers obsessed with power relationships and sexual transgression), they wouldn't get so much flak from traditional gamers.

Quote from: HaffrungNo, they're not alone. But neither are their experiences indicative of roleplaying as a whole. The traditional model is not in need of salvation from brave theorists. Nor is storytelling a more sophisticated way to play RPGs. If the folks in the indie movement didn't espouse their approach as the cool way to play RPGs   they wouldn't get so much flak from traditional gamers.

Ding!  Winner.

Play your games any way you like, and good luck to you.

Just grant me the same.  Telling me my style of gaming is 'obsolete' or 'adolescent' or 'childish' will result in me telling you to kiss my fat old hairy white ass.

Quote from: HaffrungNo, they're not alone. But neither are their experiences indicative of roleplaying as a whole. The traditional model is not in need of salvation from brave theorists. Nor is storytelling a more sophisticated way to play RPGs. If the folks in the indie movement didn't espouse their approach as the cool way to play RPGs  (and if the movement wasn't dominated by pretentious wankers obsessed with power relationships and sexual transgression), they wouldn't get so much flak from traditional gamers.

Everyone who is enjoying their roleplaying experiences will espouse their approach as the cool way to play.  If you don't truly believe your method is best, why do you continue to do it that way?  The Forge is just a different slant on the drooling d20 fanboys on, say, Enworld that get off on +5 vorpal swords, feat chains and other kewl shitz.

It's normal human behaviour.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkEveryone who is enjoying their roleplaying experiences will espouse their approach as the cool way to play.  If you don't truly believe your method is best, why do you continue to do it that way?  The Forge is just a different slant on the drooling d20 fanboys on, say, Enworld that get off on +5 vorpal swords, feat chains and other kewl shitz.

It's normal human behaviour.

I disagree. I will espouse that it's the cool way for me. And I can think of a thousand reasons why I might believe my method isn't the best, in some strange objective way if that is ever possible for RPG's. What I believe, however, is that my method is best for me.

And I think this becomes the root of many issues. Too much has been said that either implies or explicitly states that other ways (in these examples, non-Forge/GNS/TBM) are inherently, objectively, lesser methods.

If Theory Fanboys came out and said "Yeah, we're just geeks who drool over emotourism instead of vorpal swords," things might just have gone differently.

Quote from: James J SkachI disagree. I will espouse that it's the cool way for me. And I can think of a thousand reasons why I might believe my method isn't the best, in some strange objective way if that is ever possible for RPG's. What I believe, however, is that my method is best for me.

As far as I've seen, you do do this (with RPGs). But it's actually quite rare. Lots of people pay lip service to the idea, but don't really follow through.

Personally, I'd like to talk about games analytically without the emotional drama. I think that when you start discussing something, it's all up for grabs.

Quote from: droogAs far as I've seen, you do do this (with RPGs). But it's actually quite rare. Lots of people pay lip service to the idea, but don't really follow through.

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying that I espouse a One True Way of RPG's that is objectively the best way? Or that I do it but it's rare? Or that it's rare I talk about RPG's?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I truly am not getting what you're saying.

Quote from: droogPersonally, I'd like to talk about games analytically without the emotional drama. I think that when you start discussing something, it's all up for grabs.

The problem is how to do that in as objective way as possible in a medium that is laden with subjectivity. One way is to try to set up some objective criteria. Another is to talk about it in a personal way, emphasizing that the approach discussed is merely one perspective. It seems that trying to mix both is a bitter recipe. Mix in marketing, and it goes from bitter to poison.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying that I espouse a One True Way of RPG's that is objectively the best way? Or that I do it but it's rare? Or that it's rare I talk about RPG's?

I'm saying you do all right. Lots of other people don't.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkEveryone who is enjoying their roleplaying experiences will espouse their approach as the cool way to play.  If you don't truly believe your method is best, why do you continue to do it that way?  The Forge is just a different slant on the drooling d20 fanboys on, say, Enworld that get off on +5 vorpal swords, feat chains and other kewl shitz.

It's normal human behaviour.

I understand that I play RPGs for different reasons than a lot of people, and that my preferences in approach and style are marginal in the overall hobby (and getting more marginalized every year). And I'm okay with that. I realize my preferences are not typical, nor are they more sophisticated.

Too many indie/forge gamers don't realized this. They really think that if only WotC went out of business, or the d20 fanboys all switched to WoW, then there would be a renaissance in RPGs, a new dawn of adult, storydriven gaming with no authoritarian GM and no teenagers boasting about their kewl powerz.

Well, they're fucking deluded. The size of the indie storyteller RPGing hobby is about as big as it will ever get. There will be no revolution. The indie crowd will just have to content with being a niche, marginal offshoot of a bigger hobby. And the more they stand on an ivory tower and wave the banner of revolution (and praise games about throat-raping necropheliacs), the more they'll piss off the far larger number of traditional gamers and marginalize themselves even further.

Quote from: HaffrungThe size of the indie storyteller RPGing hobby is about as big as it will ever get.

Is Spirit of the Century indie?

Because if it, and games like it, are indie by your view, then I think you're wrong.  Indie games appear to be growing by diversifying out of that one niche.

If it's not indie, then nevermind; we'd be talking about different things.

Quote from: somegamer1. Every "player empowerment" game I've ever played has negotiation tactics that allow you temper (or ignore) player input. For instance, with the masked swordsman, you may say, "ok, but you only get to see one eye." Moreover, since you invested so much into this "kewl" fellow, what are you going to do if the dice go insane and I kill his ass? One of my personal frustrations with strongly pre-plotted games in the past were that I always seemed to kill a crucial NPC. Story games tend to be able to roll with or re-negotiate these punches better.

2. From your tone, it sounds like you've encountered similar attempts from players before. The alternatives are to tell them to shut up and stop stepping on your GMing toes or find ways to accommodate their contributions. Such as player empowerment mechanics.

3. The other players' interest will totally depend on what the other players are interested in, won't it? If they like tough moral decisions, they'll cheer when I introduce a complication like that. If they just want to kill things and take their stuff, well they're not entertaining me, either are they? Man, heterogeneous playstyle groups can be tough to balance. But going one way or another permanently isn't exactly fair, either.


.

Sorry, this thread ballooned on me, and I have to get to this to read another hundred or so posts...

1) If you kill him, you kill him. Maybe you expose his identity sooner if you do, but that's fine. The point isn't that he's kewl, its that I may have made him a particular person for a reason (he's really the duke's son, or some shit...). By magically making him someone unimportant to the setting, and only important to the one player, all the potential, partly related, adventure hooks are thrown off willy nilly to satisfy your sudden whim.

Negotiation be damned, thats MY NPC, you get a shiny character to play, I just get a world and the whiny demands to be entertaining on, occasionally, a moments notice (see: Galavanting across the continent on a whim, see 'wake him up from his exhaustion nap so he can run a spur of the moment birthday adventure for us'... no, I'm not bitter..:p ) If you kill him, he's still mine, and all the lovely hooks are still attached to his not so lovely corpse.  (Duke's son: Oops, now look who you killed....why was a rich kid doing banditry anyway?)

2) Given that I typically run fairly loose sessions, rather than heavily plotted, I don't really worry about it. What I DON"T need, however, are mechanics that are designed to muck up what few things I do plan out as adventure hooks.  My players are free to contribute as much as their characters can (say, by galavanting half way across the continent on a whim...). If they want to get involved with the plot that much, hey! They can fucking GM for once. I'd love a chance to roll up a character and toss the dice at an orc or three.

3) The swashbuckler is your characters ex? Not a moral complication for most parties I've played with, sorry. Your character might face a moral choice in the matter, but bob the fighter next to you? Not so much.  Now, you talk about heterogeneus playstyles... meh.  

See, as a GM I'd view what you want like this: You think your ex is involved in some shady stuff? Great, peachy. Than take your character and go INVESTIGATE HIM. Maybe I'm a bit dense, but eventually I'll realize that I need to put some 'mysterious clues' for you to find.  Bob the fighter can get behind that. Suddenly, he can help figure out what 'mysterious ex' is up to along with everyone else, rather than just witnessing your characters personal drama.  Even if bob is an unispired thug in real life, he can still go 'maybe I can thump some heads... rough the landlady up a bit for info?'. As long as you keep feeding players clues and avenues of investigation, then its an adventure and potentially exciting for everyone.  But again: My world, my NPCs, they are all I get so let me fucking enjoy them.

Capische?
;)

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI really don't see why this is a problem.  Innovation starts with people that are dissatisfied with the current way of doing things.  And the very fact that any kind of indie movement exists suggests that they are not alone.

It's possible to innovate & design without believing the existing model is broken or abusive. I see the "movement" part of the indie design community as being the problematic part of the equation. Certainly a lot of people design games without that kind of belief.

Having a personal preference for non-traditional games is fine. But once you believe that they're inherently abusive or damaging or whatever you have to start making some pretty ugly assumptions about traditional gamers (that they're deluded or sheeple or superstitious and cowardly or have poor taste) to explain why traditional games are so popular relative to other models.

Certainly this is an effective *marketing* technique -- a lot of people would like to believe that their taste in games represents an refinement that sets them apart from their fellow hobbyists. I don't think it's such a good foundation for actual game design though. For one thing, I think the whole idea that empowerment applies to rpg players (or hobby activities, in general)   is a category error... not the most solid foundation for rpg design could imagine.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Having a personal preference for non-traditional games is fine. But once you believe that they're inherently abusive or damaging or whatever you have to start making some pretty ugly assumptions about traditional gamers (that they're deluded or sheeple or superstitious and cowardly or have poor taste) to explain why traditional games are so popular relative to other models.

At the end of the day, what do you care what they think?  We are led to believe that the indie game movement is very small and basically inconsequential to the hobby as a whole.  So who cares what a handful of crackpots think?

Unless of course... perhaps... nah, it couldn't be because some of their assumptions have an inkling of truth? :rolleyes:

QuoteCertainly this is an effective *marketing* technique -- a lot of people would like to believe that their taste in games represents an refinement that sets them apart from their fellow hobbyists. I don't think it's such a good foundation for actual game design though. For one thing, I think the whole idea that empowerment applies to rpg players (or hobby activities, in general)   is a category error... not the most solid foundation for rpg design could imagine.

Really?  The thing is... the indie game movement makes games that they seem to like.  They also manage to snag the occasional trad gamer along the way.  To me, that suggests the foundations of their game design are solid enough to satisfy their own needs.  That's solid enough, wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIs Spirit of the Century indie?

Because if it, and games like it, are indie by your view, then I think you're wrong.  Indie games appear to be growing by diversifying out of that one niche.

I think Spirit of the Century would count as indie, but Haffrung was talking about the indie storyteller RPG niche. Spirit of the Century isn't a "storyteller"-y game, as far as I can see - it doesn't play around with the allocation of authorial control in the same way that most narrativist games do. It's really very traditional, and I'd argue that it's been able to get as big as it has at least partially because it's moved away from the "indie storyteller" niche and reached out to more traditional gamers.

Quote from: WarthurI think Spirit of the Century would count as indie, but Haffrung was talking about the indie storyteller RPG niche. Spirit of the Century isn't a "storyteller"-y game, as far as I can see - it doesn't play around with the allocation of authorial control in the same way that most narrativist games do. It's really very traditional, and I'd argue that it's been able to get as big as it has at least partially because it's moved away from the "indie storyteller" niche and reached out to more traditional gamers.

Yes, well you'll note that the few games out of the Forge/storygames scene to have even limited success have done so by producing what are clearly "hybrid" games, that mix elements of Forge-bullshit with elements of regular game design; and in all of these cases it is the regular game design which continues to be the good and enjoyable part and the forgey-influence is an unnecessary burden most people try to gloss over.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, well you'll note that the few games out of the Forge/storygames scene to have even limited success have done so by producing what are clearly "hybrid" games, that mix elements of Forge-bullshit with elements of regular game design; and in all of these cases it is the regular game design which continues to be the good and enjoyable part and the forgey-influence is an unnecessary burden most people try to gloss over.

What have you read or heard from people buying and playing the game that makes you believe this?

Or are you just making it up?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAt the end of the day, what do you care what they think?  We are led to believe that the indie game movement is very small and basically inconsequential to the hobby as a whole.  So who cares what a handful of crackpots think?

Unless of course... perhaps... nah, it couldn't be because some of their assumptions have an inkling of truth? :rolleyes:

Really?  The thing is... the indie game movement makes games that they seem to like.  They also manage to snag the occasional trad gamer along the way.  To me, that suggests the foundations of their game design are solid enough to satisfy their own needs.  That's solid enough, wouldn't you agree?

The Truth! It burns! It burns!

No--seriously: In the big picture I don't care. I do respond when people insult the way I play. I'm actually okay with that; it might be better if most of these discussions weren't vicious flamewars, but if that's what people are bringing to the discussion, I'm fundamentally okay with that.

On the other hand, I see folks in the indie community bemoaning the level of hostility in the discussion. Simply changing their rehtoric without in any way compromising their preferences would do a lot to aleviate that.

As far as solid-or-not, I'll let history judge.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat have you read or heard from people buying and playing the game that makes you believe this?

Or are you just making it up?

I'm basing it on my own opinion. Anything salvageable in SoTC, or Conspiracy of Shadows, etc. is the stuff that is precisely NOT forge-based.  

The fact that the Forge is making games like this means that they know that their own ideology is so repugnant that they have to produce these kinds of "mixed" games to ram in their Forge crap with the more regular RPG stuff people might actually be drawn to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fact that the Forge is making games like this means that they know that their own ideology is so repugnant that they have to produce these kinds of "mixed" games to ram in their Forge crap with the more regular RPG stuff people might actually be drawn to.

Boy, are you gonna hate my new game.