Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Personally, I think that's a fairly stunning observation.

Stunning like "The Moon Landing was a fake"? Or stunning like "Wow, so space and time are relative, but the speed of light is constant no matter what?"

I definitely point towards the first.

 

[howandwhy99]

Because a map is an abstraction. The physical simulation, while obviously still an incomplete representation, is far, far closer to the actual reality than stick figures on a white board. Not all simulations are created equally of course. Some are far more detailed than others. The more detailed a simulation is, the closer it comes to actually being what is modeled. It's not a case of either/or, but rather a spectrum from reality to completely abstract.

So a physical simulation matters because it is closer to reality? And a D&D game with greater detailed simulation is closer to reality as well? This would seem to imply higher simulated games are not storytelling games. Which would make sense when it comes to why DDM rules are not storytelling when used as DDM rules and obviously not storytelling when used in D&D4E. It's obviously false because otherwise all simulated games become storytelling games. You can't pick and choose what you want to count as stories.

The skill challenge is a simulation. You are attempting to simulate an event using rules other than the combat ones. Those rules allow the player, with the DM's permission, to affect minor changes to the scenery.

One does not preclude the other. The player must still succeed in the skill challenge or fail as the case may be. However, the parameters of the situation are not entirely in the hands of the DM.

So all "NAR" rules are simulations? Or just Skill Challenges? Which again begs the question of whether all simulation rules are storytelling rules. Stories don't just get to be about worlds and people you know. I'm betting it's because people have to narrate a sim, like in blind Monopoly. How can that not be a story?

Also, the "parameters of the situation" are never entirely in the hands of the GM unlike your assertion above. The point of dice and rules and maps are to make these judgment calls as few as possible. Or does every game requiring Referees making judgment calls count as storytelling?

So, only the things you've written down before the game starts may be used? No DM may ever extemporize any details of the setting during play? That's ridiculous. DM's do it all the time. DM's are allowed to determine what is or is not in their world every second of the day. And, while changing an existing detail without justification is bad DMing, adding something certainly isn't. I may not say that there is a badger hole in the hill, but, it's not unreasonable to think that there might be one there.

Does it really matter who places that badger hole?

I'm sorry if your Referees are "just saying" things are so in your games. That they are doing this "all the time". That sucks. Tell them to follow the rules. Adding a badger hole isn't a big deal, but if the badger hole is important to winning the game? Yes, you better roll.

This is a completely false assertion. The old 007 game back in the 80's had a hero point mechanic where you as the player could spend a hero point to add in setting elements that were in keeping with the genre. The game actually ENCOURAGED players to do so.

Trying to tell me that I'm suddenly not role playing simply because I have limited authorial control over setting elements that are not detailed by the GM is laughable.

I've been backing up this assertion with real examples for several posts now. "Just saying" I'm wrong isn't going to get you anywhere in real life. Obviously you aren't playing the role of your PC if you are playing God with the world. How can anything else not be considered laughable? (see my Burning Empires & Rand McNally examples)

Again with the entirely false assertion. Do you allow players to make backgrounds for their characters? Why? You are allowing them to have limited authorial control over the setting, therefore they are no longer role playing. Heck, do you allow them to choose their race or class? How is that any different? If I choose to play an elf, I am affecting the setting. Thus, I must not be roleplaying?

I don't know about you, but we generate PCs with dice rolls. Deciding on a setting, PCs, equipment, and whatnot before you begin playing is the same as any game prep. No matter if the simulation is defined as role-playing or not. I've already pointed out that "NAR" rule-based actions are essentially staccato setting creating that taking one out of the role of playing their character. Not good if you like to immerse yourself in the character or the world. (which is most role-players' intentions IMO)

However, "We Kicked Your Butt!!" can only happen in a game. "Just saying" our PCs win while telling a story isn't winning at anything. At best, it's winning at telling a good story, not doing the things in the story. Ditto for acting. Using "NAR" rules, the best you can do is "win" narrational authority. You're fighting the other Gods for fate control. This is why actors and storytellers aren't thrilled when they "say" or "portray" a character beating up a room full of cowboys. It's certainly nothing they did.

But, even with limited authorial control, you still have success.

But not success like winning at a wargame, right? Your warriors didn't beat his, right?

At no point can you say, "I win" as a player.

This is why NAR games lose, IMHO

You might, at best, be able to give yourself a chance of winning, but, that's entirely up the DM and still not a guaranteed success.

Entirely up to the DM? Are you serious? Do you really believe the DM is GOD argument that the BIG MODEL uses to denigrate all real non-hybrid RPGs? Or that Referees are "tyrants"?

There is winning in role-playing. You winning as your character. Role-playing is not storytelling where the only win you can have is in telling a good story. Where you, the player, are never in the characters place. Where the player is just one of multiple narrators. And never the character. How on earth can this theory even claim it's a role-playing theory?

 

[howandwhy99]

Here's a little something to help breakdown the different kinds of role-play.

1. "Real" role-playing. Like an occupation or profession. Being in the role of husband or wife, father or mother. This is playing a role in real life. These things overlap of course in the same way a person who is a "firefighter" can ask his boss "what role do you need me in?" during a fire. He's on ladder rescue. That's his role. Or another one, at least.

2. Simulated role-play. This is all the educational role-playing testing real people's real abilities. It's also RPG role-playing. Not the GM, of course. He's running the game. GM is a type #1 kind of role-play. He's not actually in the simulation. He's the one doing it.

3. Acting role-play. Actors take on roles to express their character. The improvisation needed differs from great to small depending on how much script is in place. Perhaps it's just the description of a personality? That will be hard for Mickey Mantle's actor when he needs to hit a homerun. He needs set designers, directors, and more to really help out. Of course, those people aren't actors #3 no more than they are role-playing in a simulated environment #2. The do have roles in real life though #1.

Telling a "fictional narrative" only relates to role-playing when you are being a particular kind of #1, an author, or being an actor #3. Of course, one can use "narrative discourse" in any role. When acting it's the character telling a story while the actor performing the Play. In #1 or #2 it's just normal discourse. Like an author talking about his books or an actor out-of-character talking about his performance. Or a D&D player telling the GM to have his character attack the bugbear.

It's my assertion people want to play D&D to role-play as #2. GMs fill a #1 role of running the game. But don't get confused if we refer to ourselves collectively as #1 role-players.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here's a little something to help breakdown the different kinds of role-play.

1. "Real" role-playing. Like an occupation or profession. Being in the role of husband or wife, father or mother. This is playing a role in real life. These things overlap of course in the same way a person who is a "firefighter" can ask his boss "what role do you need me in?" during a fire. He's on ladder rescue. That's his role. Or another one, at least.

2. Simulated role-play. This is all the educational role-playing testing real people's real abilities. It's also RPG role-playing. Not the GM, of course. He's running the game. GM is a type #1 kind of role-play. He's not actually in the simulation. He's the one doing it.

3. Acting role-play. Actors take on roles to express their character. The improvisation needed differs from great to small depending on how much script is in place. Perhaps it's just the description of a personality? That will be hard for Mickey Mantle's actor when he needs to hit a homerun. He needs set designers, directors, and more to really help out. Of course, those people aren't actors #3 no more than they are role-playing in a simulated environment #2. The do have roles in real life though #1.

Telling a "fictional narrative" only relates to role-playing when you are being a particular kind of #1, an author, or being an actor #3. Of course, one can use "narrative discourse" in any role. When acting it's telling a story while while performing the "play". In #1 or #2 it's just normal discourse. Like an author talking about his books or an actor out-of-character talking about his performance. Or a D&D player telling the GM to have his character attack the bugbear.

It's my assertion people want to play D&D to role-play as #2. GMs fill a #1 role of running the game. But don't get confused if we refer to ourselves collectively as #1 role-players.

But it's not the only thing people want from a D&D game (or any other RPG). And some if it might even work against #2.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Obviously you aren't playing the role of your PC if you are playing God with the world.

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and an NPC (portrayed by Bob, the DM). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and two NPCs (both portrayed by Bob, the DM). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and two NPCs (both portrayed by Bob, the DM), who are watching a horse race as they converse (described by Bob, the DM). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and an NPC (portrayed by Bob, the DM). Alan also takes the part of his PC's cohort, who interjects from time to time with reminders (since Alan's PC is established as being fairly forgetful). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

-Hyp.

 

[howandwhy99]

But it's not the only thing people want from a D&D game (or any other RPG). And some if it might even work against #2.

Again, that's perfectly okay in my book. It's more "video-gamey" role-playing because either the model isn't really very realistic and/or you have elements in the game that have nothing to do with your character. For instance, most MMORPGs don't include open spell creation because it would require players to shell script their ideas into the program code. Also, some games have monsters running around with signposts above their heads. Just like some RPGs include things like "fate points" you can spend as a player to win, but not as a character. Not wrong, just different.

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and an NPC (portrayed by Bob, the DM). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

Looks like fun.

Alan is role-playing #2, while acting #3. Bob is portraying the NPC through acting, he is not role-playing as defined under #2. (this is because DMPCs don't work, you can't objectively test yourself as a player in a game you're refereeing (any kind of refereed game)). Bob has rules for how his NPC can behave (act #3). Alan, the player, doesn't.

(think bluff, sense motive, attitude adjustment, morale, etc.)

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and two NPCs (both portrayed by Bob, the DM). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

Same as above with two roles acted.

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and two NPCs (both portrayed by Bob, the DM), who are watching a horse race as they converse (described by Bob, the DM). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

Same as above, except now Bob the GM is simulating the environment watched even though he is acting out characters in that environment.

Let's say there is an in-character conversation between a PC (portrayed by Alan, a player), and an NPC (portrayed by Bob, the DM). Alan also takes the part of his PC's cohort, who interjects from time to time with reminders (since Alan's PC is established as being fairly forgetful). Is Alan roleplaying? Is Bob roleplaying?

Alan is role-playing 2 PCs. He has limited control over one.

EDIT: Bob is just acting his one NPC, but see below too. Forgot about his NPC here.

In some games Alan's control over the the activities of the Cohort would cover any obeyed orders when given from Alan's actual PC (the Batman to his Robin). The DM would step in when required.

In other games, the limit on control would be less or even gone. The cohort could be his full PC.

Alan's #3 role-playing (acting) of his main PC as "forgetful" would be a result of Alan's intention of role-playing to act #3 (One of many intentions possible while role-playing in a simulation #2). That's his prerogative. As they say, "you can't tell someone how to role-play their character in an RPG". Type #2 role-playing does not have rules for how to portray your character.

Alan playing his Cohort stepping in to remind his main PC of forgotten details means Alan can (depending on the degree of assistance he gives "himself" here) act #3 to limit his successful role-play #2 in the world, while still playing towards success overall. As Alan gets to play 2 PCs (1 limited or not) to succeed as a team in the world, he can limit one when in discussion with each other and not hurt his actual chances of his success. Playing the knowledge of two PCs, while only one player limits what they could do if run separately (2 player's abilities tested).

In my other reading of your question, where the DM is stepping in as the cohort to help Alan (whether his forgetting is feigned or not). Not Alan as the full PC cohort:
This is like any NPC interacting with a PC may or may not be assisting that PC. The question is: Is the DM giving an objective portrayal? Is he only using knowledge the NPC has? Behaving as the generated character?

If not, the NPC may unfairly be played to assist Players who need help and this is the GM "bending the rules" to make their game play easier. Just as if he were fudging the dice in the players' favor. He's fudging the simulation in your favor. This is your benevolent tyrant.

OTOH, the NPC may unfairly be played to hinder the Players who are doing something the DM doesn't like and is "bending the ruls" to make their game play harder. He's fudging against you, portrayed NPC or dice roll. This is your "Killer DM" tyrant.

Either of these are called in the Big Model:
Illusionism - the GM is warping the world without players knowing,
Participationalism - the GM is permitted permitted by the Players to warp the world.

I believe objective portrayal of the simulated reality is best. That's my preference though as it doesn't end up in "we won because the DM let us win". This is "let us win or lose" just as in a court case where we are sentenced by a judge breaking the law. Who really wants that?

Well, maybe a judge judging the law referenced as unconstitutional or something else against the spirit of the law. But no rule-based construct of justice (or rule-based construct of a fictional world) is going to be perfect.

This is where I was in my last discussion with folks on this issue. Saying all court justices "just say" whatever they want justice to be.



Here's my question. Do you believe all RPGs collaborative storytelling games? What about if all the participants are acting #3 within them? What about if all are not? Even the GM in this case merely describing NPC actions or never having NPCs to "act" anyways?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, that's perfectly okay in my book. It's more "video-gamey" role-playing because either the model isn't really very realistic and/or you have elements in the game that have nothing to do with your character. For instance, most MMORPGs don't include open spell creation because it would require players to shell script their ideas into the program code. Also, some games have monsters running around with signposts above their heads. Just like some RPGs include things like "fate points" you can spend as a player to win, but not as a character. Not wrong, just different.

I am not really seeing the video game similarity here. Unless you're speaking about cheat codes or editors. Narrative control is something we usually lack in scripted or "simulating" games.

Crossing the desert in a videogame usually won't allow the player deciding that there is an oasis around somewhere. But a role-playing game with narrative elements - or just a DM that reacts to player input - would allow you to "add" one. Not necessarily change the nature of the desert, but defining that it exists where this was undecided beforehand.

Looks like fun.

Alan is role-playing #2, while acting #3. Bob is portraying the NPC through acting, he is not role-playing as defined under #2. (this is because DMPCs don't work, you can't objectively test yourself as a player in a game you're refereeing (any kind of refereed game)). Bob has rules for how his NPC can behave (act #3). Alan, the player, doesn't.

(think bluff, sense motive, attitude adjustment, morale, etc.)

Same as above with two roles acted.

Same as above, except now Bob the GM is simulating the environment watched even though he is acting out characters in that environment.

Alan is role-playing 2 PCs. He has limited control over one.

EDIT: Bob is just acting his one NPC, but see below too. Forgot about his NPC here.

In some games Alan's control over the the activities of the Cohort would cover any obeyed orders when given from Alan's actual PC (the Batman to his Robin). The DM would step in when required.

In other games, the limit on control would be less or even gone. The cohort could be his full PC.

Alan's #3 role-playing (acting) of his main PC as "forgetful" would be a result of Alan's intention of role-playing to act #3 (One of many intentions possible while role-playing in a simulation #2). That's his prerogative. As they say, "you can't tell someone how to role-play their character in an RPG". Type #2 role-playing does not have rules for how to portray your character.

Alan playing his Cohort stepping in to remind his main PC of forgotten details means Alan can (depending on the degree of assistance he gives "himself" here) act #3 to limit his successful role-play #2 in the world, while still playing towards success overall. As Alan gets to play 2 PCs (1 limited or not) to succeed as a team in the world, he can limit one when in discussion with each other and not hurt his actual chances of his success. Playing the knowledge of two PCs, while only one player limits what they could do if run separately (2 player's abilities tested).

In my other reading of your question, where the DM is stepping in as the cohort to help Alan (whether his forgetting is feigned or not). Not Alan as the full PC cohort:
This is like any NPC interacting with a PC may or may not be assisting that PC. The question is: Is the DM giving an objective portrayal? Is he only using knowledge the NPC has? Behaving as the generated character?

If not, the NPC may unfairly be played to assist Players who need help and this is the GM "bending the rules" to make their game play easier. Just as if he were fudging the dice in the players' favor. He's fudging the simulation in your favor. This is your benevolent tyrant.

OTOH, the NPC may unfairly be played to hinder the Players who are doing something the DM doesn't like and is "bending the ruls" to make their game play harder. He's fudging against you, portrayed NPC or dice roll. This is your "Killer DM" tyrant.

Either of these are called in the Big Model:
Illusionism - the GM is warping the world without players knowing,
Participationalism - the GM is permitted permitted by the Players to warp the world.

I believe objective portrayal of the simulated reality is best. That's my preference though as it doesn't end up in "we won because the DM let us win". This is "let us win or lose" just as in a court case where we are sentenced by a judge breaking the law. Who really wants that?

In games that make narrative control part of the game rules, it is not "because the DM let us win". It is because you used your resources given by the game (be it character powers or narrative options for players) to "win".

But you always win only because the DM let you win. If the DM doesn't want you to win, he will create a real death trap. Sending you against monsters you can't beat, or presenting a fiendish trap you never could have figured out.

Here's my question. Do you believe all RPGs collaborative storytelling games? What about if all the participants are acting #3 within them? What about if all are not? Even the GM in this case merely describing NPC actions or never having NPCs to "act" anyways?

Definitely all have the potential for them. The DM creates a setting that the characters will interact with. Solely by choosing the actions of their characters, player will affect what will happen in the game, and by thus, you have a story that is told and created not only by the DM, but also by the players, making it a story told collaboratively.

It is not the only thing they did in this time, but it is what makes the experience of "beating challenge" so unique. You can beat challenges with Sodoku or Poker, too, but you tell a story while beating challenges when playing an RPG. It creates a unique relationship between the participants and the story. You didn't just tell some story you were interested - you "worked" to realize the story.

 

[GlaziusF]

Why is a physical simulation so determinedly different than a mental one? I understand that physical props are useful for immediate representation like pictures instead of words, but why couldn't the professor have used a map, drawn or mental?

Uh... a picture is worth a thousand words? The problem with a "mental simulation" is that in order to investigate it you have to explicitly ask the person whose simulation it is. As opposed to a physical simulation where to investigate it you use the same senses you use to investigate the world. Much less turnaround time on the latter.

If skill challenges are simulations, how can they be shared narrations, while combat simulations are not?

Combat simulations are, too. It's just that everybody comes to the table with a fairly large set of actions, and if there's a battle map, they have a pretty good picture of how they can use those actions.

It's still up to people to make their mechanics make sense in the context of the gameworld, if they'd like, but there's no extra mechanical benefits.

The DM isn't allowed to do this, why would someone playing a PC in that world be able to? The DM has to base the existence of said tower or chandelier on his knowledge of what the world may hold or use whatever system is in place to determine such. If you want to include said determination into a Skill Challenge dice roll, you've changed role-players into role-players plus world creators.

The dice aren't there to decide whether the tower exists. The DM does have right of first refusal if he doesn't want the tower there, but the check the player makes is to climb the tower and not pull it down on top of himself. To get a better view of the desert. To navigate it. To pass the skill challenge. Not to somehow determine whether the tower is there or not.

 

[LostSoul]

The very definitions of the words Simulation or Model include "incomplete representation of". That doesn't change these into "shared narrational authority resolution" systems. A Player wandering the desert in the Outdoor Survival system (our OD&D system) could not say, "there is a ruined tower here my PC scrambles up." Nor is the determination of reality a "Stake" where the dice are used to adjudicate who gets to be "King of Determining the World". The DM isn't allowed to do this, why would someone playing a PC in that world be able to? The DM has to base the existence of said tower or chandelier on his knowledge of what the world may hold or use whatever system is in place to determine such. If you want to include said determination into a Skill Challenge dice roll, you've changed role-players into role-players plus world creators.

Players in D&D 4e do not have the kind of authority you're talking about, even during a Skill Challenge. Maybe the DM gives the players this authority in the game, but it's not a part of the RAW.

In 4e, a player might say, "Is there a ruined tower I can scramble up for a better view?" He doesn't have the authority to say, "I spot a ruined tower and scramble up it for a better view."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's my question. Do you believe all RPGs collaborative storytelling games?

No... but I think a collaborative storytelling game where the players assume the parts of characters falls under the umbrella of Roleplaying Games.

What about if all the participants are acting #3 within them? What about if all are not? Even the GM in this case merely describing NPC actions or never having NPCs to "act" anyways?

By "all are not", do you mean where the PCs actions are all described in the third person?

"My guy moves over here, and hits the goblin with his sword", "Regdar greets the innkeeper",
versus
"I run up to the goblin and hit him with my sword", "'Hail, good innkeeper!'"?

-Hyp.