Should this be fixed

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage, thanks for the long reply.

Some thoughts in response (and if Hussar's paying attention, sorry, more TL;DR):

I never said they were. But I did say that ingame consequences that shut down play - when the player is still wanting to play, and is still a member in good standing of the play group - are undesirable. Pointless death is a major candidate here, although not the only one.

I think that I'd classify "undesirable" as "negative" for all intents and purposes. That is, if it is desirable, it's not really negative to the player. To the PC, sure, it might be negative, but even that seems somewhat muted from your examples (such as the paladin willingly taking the beating, as it served to help the PC move in such a way that he's somewhat redeemed).

As far as character death goes, I don't hold that any character death is pointless. In my last session (which was a big one), two PCs ended up dead. The second died rather in a rather heroic way, essentially pinning down the magic of two demons and a dragon singlehandedly before being focused on and killed.

The first character, however, simply flew up into view of the most powerful demon on the realm, who was anchored in place magically. It killed him. He had been warned, and he ignored it to go after a taunting demon, and it cost him his life. What did this do, however? It caused one PC to literally mourn for days in the tent of his fallen comrade (the same PC who ended up dying), and then go about seeing if he could learn demonic phrases to say when dispatching demons. This character had been largely against combat up to this point (he was a healer), and vowed vengeance on behalf of his friend. Without his friend dying, he may not have been so driven to confront the two demons that eventually killed him, but without him, his three remaining comrades would surely have died (they barely won the fight without him, and only because of what he had contributed thus far).

Deaths are only meaningless if the players let them be. I've had several PC deaths, and the funerals or ceremonies that follow often carry with it great avenues to roleplay down.

I'm not even going into the "threat of death makes it more exciting" even if I do subscribe to it. I think from a pure RP standpoint, it's much more exciting saying "yes, we killed two of the twelve Imprisoned, but at the great cost of one of our own" and seeing the character development that follows such a sacrifice.

One of my favourite ever PCs in a game I GMed was Xialath, a wizard in a Rolemaster game set in Greyhawk. [SNIP]

And this sounds like a cool story to me, with cool events. I'd probably have a good time playing in it.

I think some of the choices and turning points I've described here were hard ones. And some of the consequences were, I think, negative for the PC. But none of them brought play to an end, or removed from the player the capacity to use his PC as a vehicle for engaging the gameworld and making the points that he wanted to make.

I don't see PCs as platforms, because I don't see PCs as authors. With my group, it's about immersion, and attaching to the specific character. To that end, the consequences in-game to the character, desirable or not, drive the immersion. Things don't always go the way you want them to. To my group, the point of the experience is the journey, not the destination. So, while we may experience a bump in the road, that bump really drives home immersion in a way that constant meta concerns would interfere with.

As I said, it's a playstyle thing. It's right for my group, and undoubtedly wrong with yours. I'd lay odds, though, that I could have fun in your style of game.

Interestingly, it seems the opposite to you - I react to the decisions that the players make, in order to keep pushing them to new decision points and new choices. Whereas decisions that the GM makes purely on the basis of his/her own judgment of what is "reasonable" within the gameworld seem to me to be more guiding of the players - it seems to me that, on that approach, the GM is primarily responsible for what happens in the gameworld.

I would not classify "the demon stops beating paladin out of boredom to pursue what it would naturally do next [such as kill the paladin, or moving on to a town, or tormenting travelers, or any other such activity that seems reasonable for a demon of its mindset]" as guiding the players in the least.

With my style, I'm reacting to the decisions the players make as well, I just don't react in any way that will prompt new decisions unless those decisions seem reasonable. From that point of view, I'm not guiding them anywhere. Where they travel to -and the consequences of those travels- are played out based solely on their decisions. If I were to prompt new choices or decisions, then I'd say I'd be guiding them -which, as far as I can tell, is the style you GM from.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that style to me inherently (it's how I run M&M, for example), but from my point of view, it's definitely more guiding than mine is. And generally speaking, guiding is a precursor to railroading.

I'm not that interested in just "playing a character" - I see the character as a means to an end. (One shots or conventions are a bit different, although even then I find that the character tends to come alive, for me, because of the relationships and backstory in which s/he is embedded.) My PC is my vehicle for doing stuff. And when I've been pursuing that end for 9 levels, doing a whole lot of stuff, only to have all that effort undone by the GM, my interest in starting from scratch is pretty slight.

That's understandable, but we have a fundamental split in how we play. I think we've explored this somewhat in the past. But, if nothing else, I prefer a simulationist approach while greatly favoring immersion, and I'm not sure you share those goals. In the end, we both have fun, so that's good

And that past play has been rendered meaningless - not in the sense that it didn't happen (it did, and it was good while it lasted), but in the sense that I had gradually built up a whole set of undestandings and expectations and ingame realities about my PC, which I could then use to do the stuff I wanted to do. And then the GM vacated it all. (The fact that ingame changes achieved by my PC might endure into the future isn't really all that relevant to me here - the point of my play wasn't to get the GM to edit some detail of his gameworld notes, but to build up my PCs relationship and situation in the gameworld so I could do stuff with it, in play.)

My player isn't defined in the way you describe - but my interest and investment in the game is defined by the way I can use my PC to do stuff, which is typically going to be expressed by building up certain relationships in the setting and acting on them.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this sounds like you achieved things "which I could then use to do the stuff I wanted to do" and that's not a bad thing. Even in my simulationist approach, it's a good thing. However, losing those things is not the devastating thing that it seems to be with your situation (I'm not diminishing it, I know there are other factors, such as the entirely setting changing).

From a simulationist point of view, exploring this could be very interesting from the character perspective. From the more narrative point of view, it's stopping you from telling the story you want to. Maybe your GM just had a more simulationist take on things, and your wants went unheard or were dismissed. If the latter is the case, perhaps finding a more satisfactory GM was the answer (which it sounds like you either pursued, or you starting GMing, which are both good answers).

As a GM, I expect to have principal responsibility for the bacstory, although the players have a role too - particularly when their PCs are concerned - but once the game is in motion, the setting is a joint possession. If the players have their PCs do stuff, not only is it done at the ingame level (ie is there some ingame consequence) but it is done at the metagame level too - I as GM shouldn't negate it or undo it by (eg) teleporting all the PCs to some other time or place where what they've done is of no consequence to the situation in which they now find themselves.

That's probably true most of the time. I tend to see the session as joint, but the setting being GM-run. If the GM wants to do that, I think he has more right than any player at the table. Now, it's probably bad GMing to enforce it, and I think players should only play if they're having fun, but I think the responsibility of setting falls to the GM.

Sure. For me, this means that I do my best to introduce consequences that don't negate or undo what the players have chosen. Sometimes this requires a judgment call. I posted an example of this upthread in my discussion of the dwarf PC in my group - if I were to suddenly introduce a new, serious element to his so far somewhat comic dealings with the NPC dwarves (eg it turns out that one of his tormentors, on whom he's now had his revenge, was responsible in the past for saving the PC's family from death) would I be adding a complication that drives things forward? Or would I be undoing what the player has done, in part by introducing seriousness where he had (not unreasonably) though that there was only comedy, and therefore retrospectively making his PC look pretty bad in a way that the player coulnd't reasonably have been expected to anticipate? I think maybe the latter, which is why I'm approaching it very cautiously.

Well, as you might guess, I probably wouldn't decide to make the "more interesting" decision. I'd make one I thought was reasonable, and stick with it. I think any story that progresses from natural consequences has much more meaning than story that was decided most of the time.

My players do love taking down the big bad demons, though, and there's story enough behind them. However, the really epic tales to them are the result of random die rolls, especially via the "Hit Chart" (on a hit, roll d100 to see the effect, which can be anything from a bonus in combat, to a mortal wound, groin shot, or weapon damaged type effect (with saves as appropriate). There are at least two instances where these random rolls have produced player-favorite stories to rehash to our two newer players (one of which included a melee human fighter PC losing both eyes, separately, on two different attacks in the same fight. The PC was played for over two more years real time, and died of old age 70 years later game time at the age of 90).

But to me, this reflection reinforces the way in which decisions about setting, and campaign backstory, and consequences, can very much have the effect (inadventently at least in my case, given that I'm trying to avoid it) of shutting down or invalidating certain sorts of player choices. Which is why I used the word "railroading" way upthread.

I'd say that "invalidating play choices" is not railroading necessarily. You do that simply by choosing limits. Playable races or classes are the most common. What if one player wants to start at level 10, not 1, for a concept? What if someone didn't want to have a reason to fight goblins, and instead had a concept of some sort of sympathizer?

I think, in general, the demand of "needs to be loyal to something or someone" and "needs to be ready to fight goblins" is just as railroady as "this is semi-medieval times, so no guns allowed." That is, I don't think it's really railroady, as it's a setting issue, and a meta issue. When comparing it to "you made a bad decision, and your character had something bad happen to it, even if you don't really like it," I find the latter even more acceptable, as it's even less of a meta issue. It's not a setting issue, it's a playstyle issue.

Meta issues draw immersion away from the game. Narrative games tend to be more meta in nature. That's not to say my game doesn't have a plethora of immersion-breaking moments, though. "What do I know about this" or "I'll roll a Knowledge check" do break the immersion somewhat. Narrative games have the advantage of this not hurting the feeling of the game.

However, they also don't allow for you to explore the character's mind, and that to me is the big downfall of the approach (though this is personal, and I'm not even speaking for my group right now). When playing a character, I can see how another person might approach things, and it really opens up new ways of thinking. It really let's you explore some depths to your own mind that you wouldn't normally reach. The more meta this becomes, however, the more drawn out of the character you become. This prevents this style of self-exploration that could be taking place, which is probably the most fascinating thing about playing a character to me.

Then again, I hate movies where I'm reminded I'm watching a movie. This means that I naturally hate claymation, breaking the fourth wall, most "stupid humor" or the like. This, as a personal preference, carries over into the game I run, and the group shares the playstyle (though definitely not my taste in movies). Escaping the meta is valuable, and really feeling the emotion of the character (not the situation) is what we often seek at the table.

At any rate, I really enjoy the long discussion. I'm not sure we're headed anywhere, but I think your style is interesting, and not quite as heavy-handed as I first imagined. I'm pretty sure I'd have fun in your game. As always, play what you like

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Sure I have. But what does that have to do with the player's answer? Or, to put it another way, do your villians wear "I'm Evil And I'm Proud" tee shirts? Or do they imagine themselves the good guys?

I can write "Evil" in the NPCs stat block; that doesn't mean that I have answered what "Good" and "Evil" mean to the NPC. Likewise, a PC might suffer a change of alignment as a consequence to action, but that doesn't mean that the PC thinks of himself as a different alignment. Only if there is a game-mechanics related effect is the PC even aware of the change.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sooo kicking a player for doing something you don't want is not a railroad, but having actual consequences for actions and letting the pcs make choices about their course of action is?

That's what I'm getting from those posts, too.

Sort of like in Back to the Future III, when the train has left the tracks and is flying around in the sky, going to any time zone that McFly and Doc Brown so desire.......I'm thinking that would still qualify as a "railroad" to some!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

One of the points I'm trying to make is that there is nothing narrower about narrativism than simulationism. And the notion the narrativism requires a special sort of explicity buy in is also false, in my experience.

To get a dwarf PC with an interesting background, all I had to tell my player was (i) there needs to be something or someone to whom your PC is loyal, and (ii) your PC needs a reason to be ready to fight goblins. To get the player of that PC to engage in interesting narrativsit play, all I had to do was to provide the player with an opportunity for his PC to act on that background. It's not very esoteric, and I don't think my player has especially rarefied tastes or interests as an RPGer.

OK, here I don't see where this is any different than simulationist play.

 

[LostSoul]

Sure I have. But what does that have to do with the player's answer? Or, to put it another way, do your villians wear "I'm Evil And I'm Proud" tee shirts? Or do they imagine themselves the good guys?

I can write "Evil" in the NPCs stat block; that doesn't mean that I have answered what "Good" and "Evil" mean to the NPC. Likewise, a PC might suffer a change of alignment as a consequence to action, but that doesn't mean that the PC thinks of himself as a different alignment. Only if there is a game-mechanics related effect is the PC even aware of the change.

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. Let me try and put your post in my own words and we'll see what I'm not getting.

The player's answer to the situation may call for a DM judgement on Alignment, but that doesn't necessarily change how the player sees his PC. He may take damage from his Talisman of Pure Good, but the player can still decide that the PC sees himself as good, or that his actions are for the greater good.

Does that sound right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. Let me try and put your post in my own words and we'll see what I'm not getting.

The player's answer to the situation may call for a DM judgement on Alignment, but that doesn't necessarily change how the player sees his PC. He may take damage from his Talisman of Pure Good, but the player can still decide that the PC sees himself as good, or that his actions are for the greater good.

Does that sound right?

Close enough for government work!

 

[S'mon]

OK, here I don't see where this is any different than simulationist play.

Me neither. Playing the dwarf naturally, as the dwarf he is, and this stuff will come up.

 

[Hussar]

OK, thanks, I suspected as much! I can see how this (Narrativist) approach can work as long as there is strong and explicit buy-in from all participants before play begins. If you don't have that explicit buy in you are going to have players taking a Simulationist approach (like mine above) or in case of games like D&D a Gamist approach, and trying to 'drift' the game in their preferred direction.

I think for us guys on ENW playing D&D, the issue is that most D&D players are not looking for Narrativism, and a player like pemerton who apparently comes into a game looking to drift it in a Narrativist direction is going to be the problem. Conversely if I came into Hussar's sci-fi game I'd probably be looking for a largely simulationist approach in terms of consequences, I'd get frustrated if any choice appeared to be equally valid in terms of my PC staying alive & successful. Which is ok and all, but something I think we've established here is that Narrativism is a narrow play style, it is actually very easy to take an 'invalid' approach for a Nar game. And this doesn't necessarily make the player a douchebag; as in your terrorist example they may not have understood the narrow &n un-simulationist, often unrealistic, foundations on which the game is set.

I disagree that narrativist needs to be more narrow, since going the non-simulationist route allows for play that would not normally occur if you go the sim route - see the example of playing a nar version of Keep on the Borderlands earlier. If the most likely result of sim play of KotB is not a game based around the morality of cleaning out the Caves, then, obviously, sim play is the wrong approach to use if you want to play out that morality theme.

I would also point out that your earlier example in the Terrorist Game would be perfectly fine as a player. You are basically saying that "my character behaves in such and such a way for such and such a reason" and you can explore the ramifications of holding those beliefs.

My problem comes when the GM makes that the objective reason for the behavior of the characters. Instead of "my character acting in such and such a way", it becomes, "Your characters will act in such and such a way for such and such a reason." The GM is defining the characteristics of the PC's.

In some games, like D&D, that's pretty much expected. That's what alignment is all about after all. Your character is Good and, as such, is expected to act in certain ways because your character is Good. (or evil, or whatever) However, if the game is about exploring the idea of whether or not something actually is moral, then starting with an objective definition negates the entire point of play.

 

[Hussar]

Meta issues draw immersion away from the game. Narrative games tend to be more meta in nature. That's not to say my game doesn't have a plethora of immersion-breaking moments, though. "What do I know about this" or "I'll roll a Knowledge check" do break the immersion somewhat. Narrative games have the advantage of this not hurting the feeling of the game.

Phew, I managed to wade through all of that. Good stuff.

I think I actually agree with this. In a Narativist game, immersion in the sense of "I want to act like my assumed persona is really there and that is the primary consideration" tends to get in the way of things. Since the primary concern is to fit events into a specific theme, then some results will be rejected, despite being perfectly reasonable, simply because other results fit better with the theme.

Obviously since the players are frequently in, what I believe is called, author stance in a Nar game, first person immersion is going to fall by the wayside.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Phew, I managed to wade through all of that. Good stuff.

Thanks, I do tend to ramble

I think I actually agree with this. In a Narativist game, immersion in the sense of "I want to act like my assumed persona is really there and that is the primary consideration" tends to get in the way of things. Since the primary concern is to fit events into a specific theme, then some results will be rejected, despite being perfectly reasonable, simply because other results fit better with the theme.

Obviously since the players are frequently in, what I believe is called, author stance in a Nar game, first person immersion is going to fall by the wayside.

I'm glad I think we're on the same page. I'm not saying my way is better for playing, just that it helps me and my group immerse, which is more important to us than the story is. However, it's really just subjective, and other people will have different experiences.

Thanks for your insight, Hussar. It's really helped me see things from your perspective a lot easier. As always, play what you like