General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
In terms of what's "real" in the imagined game world, I'm gonna take a crack at how I see this playing out.
So, everybody's imagining this fictional place where the events of the game are occurring. This might be as simple as how when you read a book you're following along with who's what, or it might be a full blown "immersion" where you're focusing on imagining your character, and only thinking about world stuff as they directly interact with it.
One school of thought might say that the "real" version of the imagined game world is in the GM's head. The GM tells you stuff, and that goes into your own version of the imagined game world, the one that's about your PC.
Another school of thought might say that the "real" version of the imagined game world is the shared one. What? A "shared imagined world"? Well, if you have a conversation with five people about a funny thing that happened yesterday, bam, that's also a shared imagined situation, so the whole idea of "this imaginary thing exists in all our heads simultaneously" isn't that weird.
The shared version basically says that the fancy, detailed version of the game world in the GM's head is the potential game world. There's all this stuff he has planned and prepped. But until it's shared, and the whole group is aware of it, none of it actually exists.
So really I think it boils down to where you think of the "game world" as residing. I personally think of it being the "shared imagined world", because that's the one everybody has access to.
The player skill at playing a 4e "skill challenge" is different from the player skill at dealing with other kinds of challenges.
Yes... There's no difference of opinion there. It's just another part of the game players can gain proficiency at handling, and DMs can use to challenge the players.
No, I really can't. You're telling me that the appearance of a dog in the street in a fantasy town is somehow wholesale creation and far less likely than the appearance of a crowbar (thanks for the clarification Ariosto - was going by memory) in a shed?
The issue is not one about the perceived rarity of dogs or crowbars. The difference is the method of implementation for the addition of either one.
The crowbar example was a query, and one that the character might have that is voiced by the player. Asking "hey what are the odds of a crowbar being in a shed around here?" is a question posed by a player while still within the role of the character in need of a crowbar.
IIRC your dog example was not a query and there was no consideration given to possibility that there might not be a dog in the vicinity. The statement that a dog had actually eaten the diamond was true and awarded the player an in-game resource for this particular edit of the ongoing story. The event happened from the perspective of editorial control outside of the role of the poor as dirt character. The decision was made for purpose of telling an entertaining story. Because of this, such a decision is from outside the role unless the poor as dirt character knows that he/she is a character in a story and is acting accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
But, in either case, the player is trying to dictate setting elements that were not there. The GM did not put a crowbar there, nor did he add in the dog. Neither examples though are beyond belief. A dog in a fantasy town? Come on, be honest here. That's easily as believable as finding a crowbar in a shed.
Again, I am not making any comparative observations about the likelihood of either occurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Again, you're taking this to a far extreme. I agree that if the players can dictate every single facet whenever they please, then yeah, that's probably not a role playing game. Or at the very least, it's pretty far left field. But, no game actually works like that. (or again, very few do) Most games allow you to make limited changes based on the genre (such as 007's Action Points which allow you to add in features that fit with the feel of the Bond movies) a limited number of times.
It's a resource, same as anything else.
Yes, and those resources are used for storytelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Why I don't buy into this:
1. It defines role playing too narrowly. It allows games like Hungry Hungry Hippos to be considered role playing games while excluding games like Spirit of the Century.
Actuality can sometimes hit like a Mack Truck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
2. It ignores the fact that almost no rpg out there does not have some mechanism for a character to affect the setting. For example, many games have Flaw mechanics of some sort. Within those Flaw mechanics, you typically have an Enemy (again of some sort) Flaw. If I take that, I, as the player, have now affected the setting by adding in an enemy that was not developed through play.
Who claimed that characters affecting the setting made it NOT an rpg?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
3. There already exists perfectly good definitions of Role Playing Game which include pretty much everything that gamers consider to be rpg's. There's nothing wrong with sub-dividing the RPG into various types. That's fine. But, I do not see the value in promoting a single type of RPG over all others. It does nothing to clarify discussion.
EW, I think there's pretty strong agreement that acting in character is necessary. Disagreement over whether it's sufficient could further muddy debates. However, anything approaching "zero tolerance" for acting out of character looks only to prolong futile argument (in the emotionally charged sense).
People will go round and round with specious comparisons and slippery slopes, often enough trying (as obviously a non-starter as it may seem) to convince you that one thing is just like another.
The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.
EW, I think there's pretty strong agreement that acting in character is necessary. Disagreement over whether it's sufficient could further muddy debates. However, anything approaching "zero tolerance" for acting out of character looks only to prolong futile argument (in the emotionally charged sense).
People will go round and round with specious comparisons and slippery slopes, often enough trying (as obviously a non-starter as it may seem) to convince you that one thing is just like another.
The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.
Yes. I am growing tired of this. It's time to discuss other topics.
The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.
Agreed. Especially when you use the wrong labels.
There's an interesting discussion to be had about the 'new' (ie since 1983) mechanics that allow players to control features of the game universe other than their PC. There's an interesting discussion to be had about storytelling, and whether it has any relationship to these mechanics.
ExploderWizard's emphasis on misusing accepted terminology, ironically in the interests of greater clarity, serves only to obscure such a discussion.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
IMO, most traditional roleplaying games have nothing to do with acting "in character" and have never been about that kind of roleplaying. Pretending to be someone you are not is well documented as being completely unnecessary for roleplaying. Nor has ever been so. Check any science book on the subject. Fire drills are roleplaying, football preseason scrimmage games are roleplaying, playing capture the flag is legitimately roleplaying. No one is saying "What would my character do?" in these games and it isn't necessary to in most hobby RPGs either.
Trying to make it necessary is a good thing. Trying to say it is a necessary condition to qualify as a roleplaying game actually excludes by definition almost every RPG ever created in the hobby.
The difficulty about defining what is an RPG comes about when trying to define the terms like Game, Story, and Roleplaying. By strict definition every game is a story game and every game is a roleplaying game. It's impossible not to tell a story in a game in a similar way to how it is impossible not to play a role in a game. Games have rules and by defining them you've defined the role for the participants to play. Not that it is any easier to define what is a game and isn't compared to other activities in life. Making up rules and following them is as fundamental an aspect of human nature as telling stories is.
I know many people's current agenda is to redefine the hobby with either character exploration or storytelling as the "one true objective" of RPGs. Neither were ever the actual focus of most designs (often whether the designers knew this or not). If the aforementioned redefinition ever were the case, then the first 30 years of RPG game design were an abject failure, populated by "the bitterest players in the world". It's pretty clear to me that is simply not the kind of roleplaying those games were meant to deliver.
Has the hobby shifted towared players desiring character exploration and "telling a story about my character"? I'd certainly say so, but any history of the hobby could never accurately claim either was the result, nor original intention, of early RPG designs.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Last edited by howandwhy99; 2nd September 2009 at 06:07 AM..
IMO, most traditional roleplaying games have nothing to do with acting "in character" and have never been about that kind of roleplaying. Pretending to be someone you are not is well documented as being completely unnecessary for roleplaying. Nor has ever been so. Check any science book on the subject. Fire drills are roleplaying, football preseason scrimmage games are roleplaying, playing capture the flag is legitimately roleplaying. No one is saying "What would my character do?" in these games and it isn't necessary to in most hobby RPGs either.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Yes. I am growing tired of this. It's time to discuss other topics.
EW. I know you're moving on, but there were two final points I just wanted to make that have been sticking in my brain. The first is related to the thread itself.
Earlier, upthread, you sounded somewhat disappointed that RPG's no longer strongly support player skill challenges (4e terminology notwithstanding ) I'm a little surprised by that to be honest. After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge. A player challenge is a meta-game challenge. It requires player knowledge in order to be resolved. Thus, by your definition of role playing, wouldn't a game which favors player skill challenges actually not be a role playing game? Since player skill challenges require the player to step outside of his defined role, aren't they in the same category as player editorial control? And, if not, why not?
The second point has to do with an ongoing current in this thread that I'd like to address. Throughout this thread, despite the fact that we have disagreed on pretty much every point, sometimes quite strongly, you have consistently argued against my points and not against me. That is a very, very refreshing thing to be honest. It is nice to see posters who can check their ego at the door, be passionate about something they believe in, but not feel they have to rely on silly buggers semantic tricks or playing stupid games and pretending not to understand a point, over and over again.
It's a true breath of fresh air and I really thank you for that. It's a shame that more posters appear to be incapable of discussing the issue and not the person.
Well done you sir.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge.
Maybe I have the wrong idea on what a "player skill challenge" is, but solving a puzzle, looking at a trap in the right place, finding the right lever to push, or deciding not to go through the forest with the Ancient Green Wyrm don't require 21st century individuals.
On the other hand, worms that eat your brain out when you're listening at doors are clearly challenges that can't be solved by 21st century individuals if there aren't rules about knowing such monsters exist. Since they sure don't exist in our world and we'd had no clue that this could be a reasonable thing to worry about.
The less the 21st century people knows on how something in the fantasy world might work, the more you need the rules to help you resolve a situation.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
EW. I know you're moving on, but there were two final points I just wanted to make that have been sticking in my brain. The first is related to the thread itself.
Earlier, upthread, you sounded somewhat disappointed that RPG's no longer strongly support player skill challenges (4e terminology notwithstanding ) I'm a little surprised by that to be honest. After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge. A player challenge is a meta-game challenge. It requires player knowledge in order to be resolved. Thus, by your definition of role playing, wouldn't a game which favors player skill challenges actually not be a role playing game? Since player skill challenges require the player to step outside of his defined role, aren't they in the same category as player editorial control? And, if not, why not?
Player knowledge would be things that the character wouldn't know or have any frame of reference for. I prefer in-game challenges that are approachable by both the player and the character. A numerical puzzle fits the bill but a riddle requiring obscure rock song lyric knowledge would not. The general challenge for the player is in decision making and strategic resource management, both of which have a frame of reference for the character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
The second point has to do with an ongoing current in this thread that I'd like to address. Throughout this thread, despite the fact that we have disagreed on pretty much every point, sometimes quite strongly, you have consistently argued against my points and not against me. That is a very, very refreshing thing to be honest. It is nice to see posters who can check their ego at the door, be passionate about something they believe in, but not feel they have to rely on silly buggers semantic tricks or playing stupid games and pretending not to understand a point, over and over again.
It's a true breath of fresh air and I really thank you for that. It's a shame that more posters appear to be incapable of discussing the issue and not the person.
Well done you sir.
A mere disagreement on gaming terminology and classification of approaches to playing are a poor excuse for hurling insults. You are very welcome.
Damn, I must spread points around before giving to EW again.
I was thinking more about number puzzles and the like - anachronistic puzzles, rather than something like ear seekers.
Are ear seekers in doors a player skill challenge? I suppose - knowing enough to use listening cones and the like. I wasn't actually thinking that way, but, Mustrum, you are exactly right.
I was thinking more along the lines of Chess puzzles, or inserting coins into slots to open doors (would someone really get the idea of a vending machine without modern knowledge?) - that sort of thing. BTW, I realize that chess isn't exactly anachronistic, but, there are a couple of things to think about there: first, why would chess exist in a fantasy world with modern rules? After all, 11th century chess is considerably different from what we play today.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I'm glad this thread is back --and not so I can disagree w/howandwhy again . I kept meaning to post my every-so-pithy description of role-playing.
While role-playing, you...
... are your character.
... are the author of your character.
... are a moving a playing piece around a game board.
These three things make up role-playing. Which is to say, these are the three things that I've noticed role-playing gamers doing over the past 25 years or so. Sure, some people enjoy and emphasize one aspect over another, but rarely to the exclusion of the other two.
Most role-playing gamers fluidly shift between these stances --forgive me Father, for I have used a Forge term-- during the course of a session. So you could say D&D is a game about role-identification, role-authorship (ie storytelling), and a wargame. Seeing as that's something of a mouthful, it's probably simpler just to call D&D a role-playing game, and leave terms like 'storygame' for things like the Baron Munchhausen game, where the premise of game involves your in-game avatars literally sitting around telling stories, rather than guiding avatars through the events that make up the story in more-or-less real time.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
It was formerly quite common to bring in players' knowledge. Anagram names suggest the relationship between player and persona, and puns and literary references obviously depend on players' familiarity to "get".
The key distinction here is that between what's in the player's mind and what's in the character's shoes. The player might know about something, but that doesn't necessarily mean the character can just make it appear -- any more than could the player.
Writing up a program that effectively "plays" the character certainly yields more theatrical consistency. The further one codifies things, reducing the players' role in deciding them to that of dice-rollers, the less they are really playing a game and the more they are doing the job of actors.
The game aspect once was more favored, role-playing having more to do with imagining oneself in the place of one's elf. Nowadays, the vogue is more for imagining oneself as the character; the "story-telling" shift puts the emphasis on portraying the character. These are not absolutes but points on a spectrum.
Last edited by Ariosto; 2nd September 2009 at 07:46 PM..
I don't think anybody can hassle you for using the Stance terms, Mallus, you're right that they actually do describe real things that real people do during games. That alone means they're not just theory.
I agree that most play has a mix of those stances, and in most of our campaigns I've seen a pretty wide mix in how they get used without it seeming jarring or incompatible. Although if a "full immersionist" or whatnot was sitting in, they'd probably label a large portion of our gameplay as OOC chatter because we end up pretty seamlessly moving from "playing out the scene" to "talking about the scene".
It was formerly quite common to bring in players' knowledge. Anagram names suggest the relationship between player and persona, and puns and literary references obviously depend on players' familiarity to "get".
It still is common in my games. For example, I named an NPC 'Mephisophocles' and a group of Hawaiian-Viking hybrids the 'Polynietzschians' . My players find things like that pretty amusing.
Quote:
The player might know about something, but that doesn't necessarily mean the character can just make it appear -- any more than could the player.
re: making stuff appear.
Let's say a player asks the DM if there's a ladder in a room (or a wagon in the town square, or a voluptuous trollop in an alleyway, etc.) Any request for more detail works. Prior, the DM hadn't considered it. But once the player asks, the DM decides 'yes there is'.
Did the player make the ladder/wagon/voluptuous trollop appear? After all, it was the player's idea, which was then ratified into fictional existence by the DM. This sure as hell looks like collaborative storytelling to me. It also looks like an integral part of every role-playing game I've ever encountered.
I guess I don't really see the significant difference between:
[player] "Is there a ladder?"
[DM] "Hmm, now that you mention it, yes"
and
[player]"I spend a Drama Point to make a ladder."
[DM]"OK, there's a ladder".
The former is a pure negotiation between player and DM, the latter occurs under a mechanical framework, like D&D combat. The result, however, is the same; the collaboration on a fictional event.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I agree that most play has a mix of those stances, and in most of our campaigns I've seen a pretty wide mix in how they get used without it seeming jarring or incompatible. Although if a "full immersionist" or whatnot was sitting in, they'd probably label a large portion of our gameplay as OOC chatter because we end up pretty seamlessly moving from "playing out the scene" to "talking about the scene".
This sounds exactly like how my group plays. Come to think of it, it's how the majority of groups I've been in played. And by 'majority' I mean 'all'.
And on the subject of 'full immersionists', much like the proverbial atheist-in-a-foxhole, no-one's a 'full immersionist' when they roll a natural 20! At that point the gamers I know look more like gamblers who just won at the craps table.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
