Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Ovinomancer · Jul 3, 2019

Wightbred said:
i absolutely agree, which is why I used the term GM-full (with a typo!), as in the table is full of GMs. I did also use GM-less as it was the term used by the poster I was responding to.

Contrasting just with GM-full is probably a simplification of a spectrum, from the GM is a god whose word is unquestionable and is solely responsible for all fun at one end, through to the GM is running the game but is open to ideas and discussion, to AW MCing, and finally to equally shared responsibility for authoring at the other end. I doubt many groups are playing at the extremes of this spectrum most of the time.

I forgot to mention a bunch of other great GM-full games like Microscope (great campaign starter) and Kingdom.

Happy gaming.

See, I disagree. Without asking for specific duties and authorities that constitute the "GM role", we can say that whatever these are they must be severable -- ie, exercising one of these authorities does not necessarily entail the ability to exercise all of the authorities. In fact, in many games with a GM, the specific authorities are defined and do not constitute the same set of authorities. Sure, D&D uses the "GM has all authority" model, but this would entail that all authorities are the GM's role, as the ability to exercise a veto is the control of a thing. Given that there's an assumed "Player role" as well, then it can't be the case that the GM's role can be so defined as it leaves no authorities for the player. This is actually a point often made about D&D in favor of the GM's authority, so I'm not on terribly shaky ground here.

All that said, if the GM's role isn't well defined, and the individual authorities are severable, then it's hard to say that there is a definable GM's role rather than a number of authorities that many games assign to the GM. Enough so that it's really not useful analysis at all to refer to the GM's role for this bucket, but rather to discuss how the specific authorities are distributed. Refering to a shifting bucket of authorities as the "GM's role" doesn't illuminate what's happening in play, but obscures it. I will concede it's possibly useful in introducing concepts of a game to new players that are steeped in D&D-style authorities, in that it frames the game inside their limited reference experience, but, past that, it's just not helpful at all.

Ovinomancer · Jul 3, 2019

FrogReaver said:
I agree. The most simple rationale is that true RPG play doesn't allow for players to dictate how anyone reacts to them. That's the territory of the GM. Nor for the GM to dictate how the players react. That's the territory of the player.

Now there are many games that introduce story telling elements alongside true roleplaying to allow players to roleplay while also providing them some degree of narrative control. I'm not willing to classify such games as non-roleplaying games, but I think it's important to point out the distinction about what actually is a role playing element and what actually is a collaborative story telling element.

Strongly disagree with this. You've defined 'roleplaying' as 'how I prefer to play' and not in any terms outside of your preferences. Burning Wheel is very much a role-playing game and yet has mechanics where the DM can indeed direct a PC's action. This is because it's play loop is contested truth statements, and the winner of the roll gets their statement as truth. On the GM side, this can very much be declaring a different action for the PC (and the outcome) than what the player wanted. It's a still a role-playing game though, and actually centers much more of the play around the character than D&D does (because it has mechanics that focus play on the PC while D&D is a task resolution system). Don't let your preferences become fetters that prevent you from seeing other games as valid.

EDIT: for a more D&D oriented response, see dominate person/monster, charm abilities, and emotion spells. These can all have the GM dictating PC actions, so even in D&D your argument runs into problems.

GrahamWills · Jul 3, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Strongly disagree with this. You've defined 'roleplaying' as 'how I prefer to play' and not in any terms outside of your preferences. Burning Wheel is very much a role-playing game and yet has mechanics where the DM can indeed direct a PC's action ... On the GM side, this can very much be declaring a different action for the PC (and the outcome) than what the player wanted.

Agree with Ovinomancer; it's not a "requirement of roleplaying" that the DM cannot direct how players react. In fact, it'd guess that pretty much every GM has had players react to being hit by taking damage, react to being scared by running, react to being knocked unconscious by falling over, react to being awed by a dragon by taking a penalty to attacks, etc.

I know that some people like to make a distinction and say that the GM's job is to judge purely physical reactions only, making them play the role of a physics simulation runner. But that's only some GMs and some players -- many other of us prefer to play games where simulation of physical reality is accompanied by simulation of emotional reality also. In fact, some of use like games where that is the main role the GM plays and the physics part is shared by all players.

FrogReaver · Jul 3, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
EDIT: for a more D&D oriented response, see dominate person/monster, charm abilities, and emotion spells. These can all have the GM dictating PC actions, so even in D&D your argument runs into problems.

See Magic

Tony Vargas · Jul 3, 2019

FrogReaver said:
I agree. The most simple rationale is that true RPG play...

… if you find yourself needing to append "True" to something, you're probably trying to assume a conclusion about what that something is …

FrogReaver · Jul 3, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Strongly disagree with this. You've defined 'roleplaying' as 'how I prefer to play'

No I've not. I've defined it as what it is.

and not in any terms outside of your preferences. Burning Wheel is very much a role-playing game and yet has mechanics where the DM can indeed direct a PC's action. This is because it's play loop is contested truth statements, and the winner of the roll gets their statement as truth.

Which is not a true RPG mechanic. It's a narrative/storytelling style mechanic. As I said, the games are RPG's because they do contain many RPG elements as well. But the mechanic you are bringing up is not one of those RPG mechanics.

On the GM side, this can very much be declaring a different action for the PC (and the outcome) than what the player wanted.

Which is not a roleplaying mechanic but a story/narrative mechanic.

It's a still a role-playing game though,

Of course it is. That doesn't mean every mechanic involved in for roleplay though. See the distinction?

and actually centers much more of the play around the character than D&D does (because it has mechanics that focus play on the PC while D&D is a task resolution system). Don't let your preferences become fetters that prevent you from seeing other games as valid.

Those are very valid role playing games. Those role playing games do have non-roleplaying mechanics. They aren't pure and true role playing games, but rather blended hydrids of roleplaying and narrative style games. Both have their place. Both have those that like them.

But please don't act like anything that has some roleplaying elements means that all elements in it are elements of roleplay. That's a fallacy.

FrogReaver · Jul 3, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
… if you find yourself needing to append "True" to something, you're probably trying to assume a conclusion about what that something is …

Not at all. True is used to draw a distinction between something that only contains roleplaying elements and something that contains role playing elements and non-roleplaying elements. The systems being described don't only contain roleplaying elements, they contain a lot of other elements that are not role playing elements.

Tony Vargas · Jul 3, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Not at all. True is used to draw a distinction between something that only contains roleplaying elements and something that contains role playing elements and non-roleplaying elements.

Exactly. You're trying to establish whether something is legit RP, and to do it, you first define it as not, then use it as proof. Assuming the conclusion.

To put it another way, GMs describing player actions/reactions and Players describing things outside their characters are 100% perfectly legit RP.

Just in a different style.

FrogReaver said:
Now there are many games that introduce story telling elements alongside true roleplaying to allow players to roleplay while also providing them some degree of narrative control. I'm not willing to classify such games as non-roleplaying games...

See, all you've proven is that you're unwilling to acknowledge a style or sub-set of RPGs as such.

That says nothing about the games or styles in questions. It's just you.

Nagol · Jul 3, 2019

FrogReaver said:
See Magic

There are many games where no magic is involved and the GM is not only expected to inform PC response, but is required to do so.

Pendragon has a major portion of a character definition be the PC's relationship with a set of paired virtues and vices. The PC is exposed to tests of a virtue or vice and the GM is expected to have the PC react according to how well or poorly the test has handled:

Pendragon 3e said:
A critical success in a trait roll indicates that the character must act in the manner described by the trait. The action needs not be totally outrageous and extreme, but is visible and overt enough to be noticed enough by others, and to make the character feel that he has revealed strong emotions or even compromised himself. Thus we can imagine Sir Bors de Ganis gains a critical success on his Lustful trait of 1. Certainly he does not rape the girl. The gamemaster declares that he gently touches the maiden's fair cheek, causing her to blush. This is enough for Sir Bors to feel embarrassed and ashamed for perverting his ideals.

Fantasy Wargaming is another RPG with a series of personality tests designed to represent temptation, loyalty, and social pecking order in an adventuring group.

Other games have morale rules which may dictate how the PCs act under duress.

FrogReaver · Jul 3, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Exactly. You're trying to establish whether something is legit RP

Of course. The term roleplay has a precise meaning. If we cannot establish whether something is legit roleplay then the term roleplay has no precise meaning.

, and to do it, you first define it as not, then use it as proof. Assuming the conclusion.

Consider a brown dog. Brown is a specific color. White is a different specific color. Would you also accuse me of defining the brown dog as not white as if that is something to be frowned upon?

That's essentially the rebuttal I'm getting from you and it makes no sense - because words have meanings

To put it another way, GMs describing player actions/reactions and Players describing things outside their characters are 100% perfectly legit RP.

Player's describing player actions is roleplaying. Thus when a GM describes player actions that is not roleplaying. Just like above where brown is not white.

See, all you've proven is that you're unwilling to acknowledge a style or sub-set of RPGs as such.

I'm unwilling to define roleplaying as something it is not. I acknowledge that the games in question do have many roleplaying mechanics, but my disagreement is in calling every mechanic in such a game a role playing mechanic. Assuming the whole is something because part or even most of it is something is a major fallacy. Please don't fall for that fallacy.