Should this be fixed

[Nagol]

Nagol, I've got not doubt that the group has to be on the same page, more-or-less.

In my own group there's one play who's more interested in 4e as a gamist excercise than a thematic exercise, but happily the 4e mechanics (or, at least, the way we use them) mean that that player's pursuit of tactical victory neither impedes nor is impeded by the other players treating the tactical game as a vehicle for expressing theme. So I think a bit of accommodation can sometimes be possible.

There are two glosses that I would want to add to your post, though.

First, the idea of "GM intervention" I think is a little misleading. Very few games have a "justice system resolution table", so the conequences of a murderer being "turned in" are always up to the GM to determine. There is nothing distinctive about narrativist play in this respect - what is distinctive is the considerations that inform the GM's determination.

I've seen them, but they aren't necessary most of the time. Although the result is defined by DM fiat, there is only so far the DM can walk before damaging suspension of disbelief, establishing precedent for PC immunity, and/or extending the punishment of justice to the innocent players. All of which negatively affect the campaign and play group. After all, long-term incarceration is often more damaging to the PC than death in D&D. So if the DM is trying to keep the PC in play despite the social consequence of a capital crime, he is limited to consistently less likely legal results of not guity verdicts, wereguild, exile, or suicide missions.

Not guilty verdicts and wereguild generate a feeling of immunity as the PCs expect consistency of ruling and tend to fall into riches during play. Exile and suicide missions force the other players in the position of accepting the same punishment or condemn the rogue player themselves. This can poison camraderie more than the DM providing a response since the DM is already an outsider to that team spirit.

Second, I don't think that narrativist players are particularly prone to being disruptive or derailing games, or pose any extraordinary problem in terms of expectation management. Hardcore gamist players, for example, who focus on PC optimisation and who approach every ingame situation from a fiction-light pawn stance, are a well known issue for simulationist GURPS, HERO, 3E or even AD&D 2nd ed play.

And a certain sort of simulationist player, who wants to roleplay out every shopping expedition , for example, and who plays the character to the exclusion of engaging the situations the GM is presenting to the group, is disruptive of mainstream D&D play focused on simulation as a chassis for gamism, because this sort of simulationist player refuses to "step on up".

I'm unsure that narrativist are more innocent of disruption. I have two players at my table that try to explore narrative themes. One pursues it without group agreement and derails sessions, group goals, and generates a fair amount of conflict within the group. It's at least as disruptive to the group as a the fiction-light camp -- the group has less internal strife with them even though the consequences of their actions are at least as damaging to the group efforts because it isn't pursued as a solitary choice.

So I agree that some sort of mutuality in the group is important, but I don't think that simulationism provides any sort of privileged safe harbour. In fact, in my (admittedly limited) experience it is fairly easy for a narrativist player to drift a group in that direction - you keep following the GM's plot hooks, but treat the GM's storyline as simply a backdrop against which thematically driven PC-to-PC interaction takes place, which interactions in turn inform the way the group engages with the GM's storyline. This is perhaps not the most functional RPGing of all time (it depends a fair bit on how the GM responds).

Simulationism isn't a safe harbour, but it can provide the framework of shared expectation that allows the players to continue to engage in the campaign in a personally meaningful way. More important is consistency of application and response from the DM. It isn't simulationism to say "Your character is accused by his compatriots of killing the respected necromancer X. As he is considered both extremely dangerous and a flight risk, he's being held without bail for the investigation to complete. Based upon your character's statements and witness statements, a guilty verdict is likely. Would you like to roll a replacement character or wait for the trial?" It is an application of narrative power that helps maintain the imaginary society at a predictable and understandable level for the group and provides understandable and predictable consequence to meaningful player choice.

But at least in my experience, it is evidence against the notion of simulationism (or very exploration heavy gamism of the classic D&D variety) as a default approach to RPGing.

Exploration-heavy gaming is by no means the default for RPGing -- take for example most superhero games where the characters are a reactive and defensive force. It was the stated default for D&D though that became the unstated default and then supplanted by the unstated default of heroic action in a developed plot.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Excellent post, Nagol!

 

[Doug McCrae]

There need not be any "negotiation of a dimension of context that choices and consequences will always be measure against". There could be, I guess, but in my games it just emereges naturally out of play. In the paladin case, the context is introduced implicitly by the players' decision to play a paladin in a fantasy game.

This seems to be the major difference between your play style and the 'standard narrativistic model' in the article. If I read it right, then in that model the player, during char gen, specifically and clearly chooses the crux of the ensuing conflict. For example if a character has 'Love for son' as his story driver then the GM will write a scene in which that love is challenged, for example the son may commit a terrible crime.

In a typical D&D game it's not clear what a player is communicating by choosing the paladin class. Maybe he just likes the idea of being a knight in shining armour and is looking forward to jousting and damsel rescuing, rather than having to choose between his church and his faith, or whatever.

In another thread you talked about Pendragon being drifted towards narrativism and I see now how that could easily happen, by using Passions. A Passion can be anything, they are chosen by the player, such as Hate (Saxons) 15 or Love (Guinevere) 20 (they are always quantified). This is just like selecting Love (Son) above.

 

[billd91]

Extreme =/= evil. I don't think anyone would disagree that terrorist acts are extreme, but, there are loads of examples (most of which are against site policy to talk about, I'm sure you can think of a few) where extreme acts that are quite clearly acts of terrorism are not evil and are, in fact, historically lauded as acts of freedom from oppression.

But extreme's just another label, isn't it? One that will have repercussions. What's the big deal with having one more? So far, based on your posts and if I were to try to describe this in 4e power terms, I think we can put descriptors on the power "Act of Terrorism" of extreme, illegal, and violent. All of those will be certain to bring on negative consequences in a campaign run with any verisimilitude. Why's attaching evil as a descriptor railroading while the others are not?

If I objectively state that terrorism=evil, then all acts of terrorism become evil. Therefore, no act of violence by a civilian group against a government body is morally valid.

That's quite obviously not true.

Not all acts of violence by civilians against a government body are really terrorism either, though quite often governments will brand them such in their efforts to control the public discourse. A more scholarly and less political definition would suit a game involving terrorists or insurgents well.

 

[LostSoul]

Which gets very difficult if the players are playing at cross-purposes or at least not agreed on accepting the same campaign style.

At some point there has to be a reckoning between the group as to what sort of game is being played.

Yeah. I don't think this problem is specific to any style of play; if the players don't want to play the same game, there are going to be problems.

So if the DM is trying to keep the PC in play despite the social consequence of a capital crime, he is limited to consistently less likely legal results of not guity verdicts, wereguild, exile, or suicide missions.

One interesting feature of Burning Wheel - a game that facilitates Story Now - can be found in its Compromise mechanic. This allows the DM to create driven NPCs who go in looking for the death penalty or maiming, play them faithfully, and not have to worry that he's going to remove the PC from play. The Compromise mechanic makes it unlikely that one side is going to get its way without having to make concessions. This is how the guilty verdict death penalty should be turned into exile, a suicide mission, weregild, or a not guilty verdict with some backroom deals.

Exploration-heavy gaming is by no means the default for RPGing

Jargon alert! I'm pretty sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] means Exploration as defined in the Big Model. If not he can correct me.

Exploration
The Big Model defines roleplaying as Exploration: the imagining of fictitious events, places, and people. Exploring fictional content is the basis and fundamental definition of all roleplay.
There are five "elements" of exploration, or five things that players will explore. All five are always present, although different games will emphasize and prioritize some over others. The five elements of exploration are character, setting, color, situation, and system.[3]​

Why "Exploration" is used and "Roleplaying" isn't I don't know, but there ya go.

 

[Nagol]

If you remove character, setting, color, situation, and system does anything remain?

Without a system, there is no game.

Without character, setting, and situation there is no story.

Without colour, there isn't even a static scene left.

(Unless, of course these terms are also redefined!)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Interesting quote from Dogs In The Vineyard, which corresponds strongly with what pemerton has being saying -

PLAYING GOD?

In most RPGs with religious content, the GM arbitrates the characters’ morality. The GM plays God (or the gods) as an NPC, giving and withholding moral standing— whatever form it takes in the particular game: Faith Points, Alignment Bonuses, whatever— based on the characters’ actions. Not in Dogs.

In Dogs, the GM has no opportunity to pass effective judgment on a PC’s actions. Talk about ‘em, sure, but never come down on them as righteous or sinful in a way that’s binding in the game world. The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.

Which is good! Which is, in fact, essential. If you, the GM, can judge my character’s actions, then I won’t tell you what I think. I’ll play to whatever morality you impose on me via your rulings. Instead of posing your players an interesting ethical question and then hearing their answers, you’d be posing the question and then answering it yourself.

How dull would that be.

- page 94

 

[Raven Crowking]

From over 30 years of gaming, of GMing, and of role-playing the various gods in various campaign worlds, I call bull.

Do players consider the consequences of their actions? Surely they do. Does that mean that "posing the question and then answering it yourself"? Never seen it happen.

Again, the idea that consequences are stripped from PC choices, for good or for ill?

How dull would that be.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

Do players consider the consequences of their actions? Surely they do. Does that mean that "posing the question and then answering it yourself"? Never seen it happen.

You've never made a ruling on the Alignment of a PC based on his actions?

(Whether or not that's "dull" is a matter of personal taste.)

Again, the idea that consequences are stripped from PC choices, for good or for ill?

I don't know where you are getting that idea from.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As far as I can tell, providing answers to fundamental ethical questions is the most important thing a player does in Dogs In The Vineyard. It's what the game is primarily about. So for the GM to answer those questions is a major no-no.

It would be the equivalent of an OD&D referee deciding which route the PCs take thru his mega dungeon, or a Tomb of Horrors DM lobbing the module over his screen and letting the players read it. It would go against the basic aim of play.