I think there is an element of competition in RPGs, and more so in some games than others.  Whether it's the group vs. the challenges of the adventure, or the players vs each other to see who can do the most / best, it's definitely there.  Just go to WotC's message boards and look at all of the people talking about "the perfect build" for their characters or the "best" combination of feats to take.

Since RPGs are descended from war games, there are definitely competitive elements to many RPGs.

It's interesting you mention the "how to roleplay" sections, because that's initially what this thread was about -- the GM advice sections of RPGs...

Edit:  Go look at post #1 -- I would have quoted it... but we're talking so nicely now.  I'll let you get mad at Settembrini instead.

But you see, a lot of people do get a kick out of the idea that the decisions they make will lead to them "winning" or "losing". That's not silly, either.

Edit: Damn, the posts are flying fast & furious. Above cross-posted and intended for J Arcane.

Quote from: StuartReally?  Even after the Billy the baseball player and Superstar USA link?

Let me try again... if your enjoyment from the game is based in large part on feeling satisfied about having played the game well -- but then you find out it was contrived to let you win, you lose that sense of satisfaction.  This may not be applicable to all players -- but it is for me.  And I think for some other people on this site.  And certainly a lot of people who more-or-less got out of RPGs and into Boardgames as they got older.

When I was a wee lad, my father taught me to play Risk.  By teaching, I mean he handed me the rules, expected me to read them, and he straightened me out about any mistakes I had in interpretation or lack of grasp of application.  Then we played.  By played, I mean he would completely wipe me out.

Eventually I learned the typical tactics that Australia and South America were good ideas to try and secure and use as a power base.  My father didn't tell me this, I learned it from watching him play and seeing the tactics he'd use against me.  As time went on, I got better, but my father would still beat the snot out of me.

One night, I finally won.  I was extremely excited.  I had finally beaten my dad at the game he taught me.  It was one of those definining moments in my life.  Sadly, it wasn't the definining moment because of what you may think it was.

Later that night, I was awake late and thirsty.  I needed a glass of water, and the bathroom was past the door to my parents' bedroom.  I walked by and heard them talking about the Risk game.

Mom: "So did he win, or did you let him win?"

Dad: "I let him win.  I figured it was time he should have his victory.  The game was going on longer than I wanted to play anyway."

That absolutely DEVASTATED me.  I never played Risk with my father again.  What was the point if he was just going to be dishonest and let me win?  Being allowed to win by default is no accomplishment.

It's the same feeling with RPGs.  We play for the abstract concept of fun, but we also play to be active in the playing.  If our activities don't really matter in the context of the game, if every road leads to the same result, what is the point of our playing?  Where is the fun and sense of accomplishment?

It also comes from looking at games differently.  I think the anti-illusionist sentiment is because we want to be problem solvers.  We want to match wits with the GM and either outsmart him or be defeated.

Quote from: StuartI think there is an element of competition in RPGs, and more so in some games than others.  Whether it's the group vs. the challenges of the adventure, or the players vs each other to see who can do the most / best, it's definitely there.  Just go to WotC's message boards and look at all of the people talking about "the perfect build" for their characters or the "best" combination of feats to take.

Since RPGs are descended from war games, there are definitely competitive elements to many RPGs.

It's interesting you mention the "how to roleplay" sections, because that's initially what this thread was about -- the GM advice sections of RPGs...

Edit:  Go look at post #1 -- I would have quoted it... but we're talking so nicely now.  I'll let you get mad at Settembrini instead.

I realize what the thread is about, but that wasn't the specific "noob moment" I was referring to.  It was realizing that I was suddenly in a situation of arguing about the typical "It's not about winning" bit that feature in so many RPGs.

And as for your reference regarding character building, I think you are mistaking something.  I'm not "winning" anything when I play with my character builds.  I'm just tinkering.  If I'm competing against anything, it's the system itself, not the other players, or the GM.

Quote from: GabrielWhen I was a wee lad, my father taught me to play Risk.  By teaching, I mean he handed me the rules, expected me to read them, and he straightened me out about any mistakes I had in interpretation or lack of grasp of application.  Then we played.  By played, I mean he would completely wipe me out.

Eventually I learned the typical tactics that Australia and South America were good ideas to try and secure and use as a power base.  My father didn't tell me this, I learned it from watching him play and seeing the tactics he'd use against me.  As time went on, I got better, but my father would still beat the snot out of me.

One night, I finally won.  I was extremely excited.  I had finally beaten my dad at the game he taught me.  It was one of those definining moments in my life.  Sadly, it wasn't the definining moment because of what you may think it was.

Later that night, I was awake late and thirsty.  I needed a glass of water, and the bathroom was past the door to my parents' bedroom.  I walked by and heard them talking about the Risk game.

Mom: "So did he win, or did you let him win?"

Dad: "I let him win.  I figured it was time he should have his victory.  The game was going on longer than I wanted to play anyway."

That absolutely DEVASTATED me.  I never played Risk with my father again.  What was the point if he was just going to be dishonest and let me win?  Being allowed to win by default is no accomplishment.

It's the same feeling with RPGs.  We play for the abstract concept of fun, but we also play to be active in the playing.  If our activities don't really matter in the context of the game, if every road leads to the same result, what is the point of our playing?  Where is the fun and sense of accomplishment?

It also comes from looking at games differently.  I think the anti-illusionist sentiment is because we want to be problem solvers.  We want to match wits with the GM and either outsmart him or be defeated.

I feel ya brother.

Yeah, I'd say a lot of it has to do with wanting to solve problems with our wits. But it also expands to wanting to genuinely affect the path of one's character, and things that the character would be able to influence.

I don't think that an improvising GM stops this from happening, but there are certain approaches to improvisation that do.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, but RedFox, didn't you say earlier that you enjoyed an improvised game like that, but only because you didn't know it had been improvised? Why's that?

Because it's less fun.  Like when a magician shows you his tricks.

Quote from: RedFoxBecause it's less fun.  Like when a magician shows you his tricks.

The greatest trick the GM ever pulls , is making the players think he/she does not exist. (I'm from the Keyser Soze school of gming )

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RedFoxBecause it's less fun.  Like when a magician shows you his tricks.

I've never had this problem.  Usually if the GM says sometihng after the session about how he was basically just winging the whole thing, my responds is usually, "Dude, that's badass!  You did an awesome job!"  And then I want to play more because I know the GM is that good.

Quote from: RedFoxAlright...  I guess I just don't like the prejudicial connotation of the term.  Like calling pro wrestling "fake sports."  Well, yeah but...

Hey now, I won't hear anything against pro wrestling, the saddest thing about my ceasing to be a student years ago was that I never got to watch the WWF during the daytime again.

I enjoy exploring worlds that feel like they really exist, in a mystery game I like working out the mystery and defeating the bad guy.

If, no matter what dumbass shit I do, the game gets improvved in such a way that I will inevitably work out the mystery and defeat the bad guy then that is not fun for me, I want the challenge, I want the realism that comes from a preexisting mystery that I may or may not work out.

Now, some folk really enjoy the all paths lead to Rome approach and more power to them, but I ain't one of them.  I like to know that Rome is really out there, and that if I take the wrong path I'll end up in Hull instead.

Stuart is like me in this, and it's got bog all to do with improv.  I routinely improv most stuff in my games, but the basics are real in the world.  Hugo the Baron de Montfort really is behind the tax swindle, I may improv a ton of stuff in play but if the players decide his butler is the real villain then they're just wrong and that's sometimes the way it goes.

The satisfaction of being right outweighs the occasional disatisfaction of being wrong.  For me anyway.

Discovering after the fact that the game was in fact one giant illusion would probably suck for me, as it would mean my choices hadn't really mattered.  I want my choices to matter, I want my choices to make the difference between success and failure, if I will succeed whatever I choose then I don't have that and somehow for me the fact someone might mislead me into thinking I had meaningful choices when I didn't does not make that ok for me.

But you may and some of you do differ, which is cool, but I'm with Stuart.

If your'e really good with google you can search on the terms "the moving clue" and "Ron Edwards" and you'll find Ron's advice about running a mystery game on the Gaming Outpost.

This advice, specifically identified as a "Narrativist technique"  circa 2000 or so, involved illusionistically moving the clue wherever the PCs were looking for it, whether you originally planned it to be there or not.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf your'e really good with google you can search on the terms "the moving clue" and "Ron Edwards" and you'll find Ron's advice about running a mystery game on the Gaming Outpost.

This advice, specifically identified as a "Narrativist technique" circa 2000 or so, involved illusionistically moving the clue wherever the PCs were looking for it, whether you originally planned it to be there or not.

You have got to be KIDDING me?!?!

O M F G

:rotfl:

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf your'e really good with google you can search on the terms "the moving clue" and "Ron Edwards" and you'll find Ron's advice about running a mystery game on the Gaming Outpost.

This advice, specifically identified as a "Narrativist technique"  circa 2000 or so, involved illusionistically moving the clue wherever the PCs were looking for it, whether you originally planned it to be there or not.

...I'm not that good, apparently.

Link me!  Link me!

That's too funny to miss.

Yes, we must have linkage!  (I can't find it either)

We should use this technique to create a new game!

Clue 2: Electric Boogaloo

Can you imagine playing with your friends for half an hour, then telling them how the game works?  hahaha :rotfl: