Planescape and narrativist play

[Balesir]

And in Balesir's account, LG has a sort of dual meaning as an ideal - both what those on Mount Celestia believe, and whatever ideals the player of a PC paladin is striving towards - and there is scope, then, for conflict between these.

Good observation. I think [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] is pointing to the D&D alignments not being the sum total of character ethics and morals.

I think what I'm saying stretches a little further than that. I'm saying the term "Lawful Good" itself is open to interpretation; although there are a collection of ideals and acts that most would agree either "are" or "are not" LG, there are some aspects where some would say "that is a lawful good tenet" and others would say not. In the end, "Lawful Good" is just a label applied to a collection of values and 'maxims' (in the Kantian sense). Just what this 'collection' consists of is a matter of belief - which, in Planescape, is what (in the aggregate) makes reality.

Hence, "Lawful Good" is what the planar inhabitants believe it to be; if you can change what they believe, even a little bit, you can change what Lawful Good actually is. Doing this necessarily implies setting up a different set of beliefs - a "rival" Lawful Good, if you like. And then making the inhabitants of a planar locale see that your definition is the "right" one. Naturally, this may bring resistance from those who have vested interests - either psychological or physical - in the "old" definition...

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]:

(1) In contemporary moral philosophy, what you describe is sometimes marked by the distinction concept/conception - so in your example, there would be a struggle around competing conceptions of the concept of lawful goodness.

(2) If I'm getting a feel that you're talking about narrativist play but with a very heavy underpinning of exploration of a range of moral beliefs, am I on the right track?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sure I'll be using the Forge terms correctly, but here's my perspective.

Planescape's biggest conflicts were mostly between beliefs, and within an individual character (NPC or PC) about their own beliefs.

Thus, it was about distinct concepts of how reality worked. Alignments were labels to put on certain view of reality. "Lawful Good" was a description for someone who valued organization and altruism, regardless of their other virtues, which was why one of the big "villain" organizations in the game (the Harmonium, frequently presented as antagonists) was billed as mostly Lawful Good. The question was: was forcing people to be Good actually Good? Two fully Lawful Good people could disagree on this point, and still be entirely within the scope of their alignment.

Alignments happened to be associated with physical locations, too. So as you believed in order and others, your immortal soul would get pulled closer to the physical location of Celestia.

Because Planescape encouraged the idea that beliefs were phyiscal, tangible forces, a kind of magic, changing your beliefs literally changed your world, and changing the beliefs of lots of people literally changed the world. What you believe was true, with the caveat that what someone else believed was true, too. When those beliefs met, there would be conflict, and a more powerful belief would prevail.

So we have conflict vs. self, conflict vs. others, and conflict vs. nature, and all three types of conflict are, essentially, in Planescape, clashes of beliefs about reality.

 

[pemerton]

So we have conflict vs. self, conflict vs. others, and conflict vs. nature, and all three types of conflict are, essentially, in Planescape, clashes of beliefs about reality.

In light of what you have said here, the question about narrativist play in Planescape becomes - are the parameters and possibilities for resolution of these conflicts already settled by the source material, or are they to be worked out in play as driven by the convictions and concerns of the participants in the game? If the former, probably high concept simulationism. If the latter, probably narrativism.

This is why I'm putting so much weight on the alignment issue, and also a degree of weight on the factional loyalty issue (what Quickleaf calls "factions as top-down mission givers"). Because these are the main ways in which resolution can be predetermined, by the source material as applied/adjudicated by the GM.

Whereas consensus resolution of alignment issues, or (as in Balesir's example) allowing competing conceptions of Lawful Good to fight it out - with the players, via their PCs, taking sides in that conflict - is a way of avoiding that GM force and predetermination, and instead putting these questions into the centre of play as questions to be settled, rather than as answers to be discovered.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] Dude, forcing people to be lawful good may or may not be lawful or good, but it definitely shifts alignment one step toward 'uncool'

About the outer planes as the embodiment of alignments, I really played with that idea in our games and felt the setting really held back in that department - I wished they would have flexed their design more in that area. But it was cool how each plane also had a 'theme' associated with it's alignment - e.g. Carceri wasn't just Neutral (Chaotic) Evil, it was the Prison Plane. In our old game I remember that 'theme' being just as important as the alignment.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
I like what you said about "questions to be settled, not answers to be discovered". Actually I felt in Planescape in particular these two things overlaped quite a bit. The PCs would question something that was left unexplained in the books, and then they'd disagree with each other, then disagree with some NPCs.... then theyd cut off some heads ....and then as a group we'd come up with the answer.

So, what about planescape struck you as having resolution be predetermined? Was it the AD&D era alignment system?

 

[pemerton]

But it was cool how each plane also had a 'theme' associated with it's alignment - e.g. Carceri wasn't just Neutral (Chaotic) Evil, it was the Prison Plane. In our old game I remember that 'theme' being just as important as the alignment.

I agree that this flavour stuff is cool. I like that 4e has kept a lot of it (Carceri, Pandemonium, the Abyss) but largely shorn of the alignment baggage.

(And I've used a lot of it in my old Rolemaster games, again shorn of the alignment baggage.)

So, what about planescape struck you as having resolution be predetermined? Was it the AD&D era alignment system?

Yes, the alignment system, which seems to require the GM to prejudge a whole lot of stuff, and/or to exercise a whole lot of force during play.

And also the Faction set up, which again seems (at least to me) to emphasise GM force (through playing the faction leadership, handing out missions etc - as you put it, "top down mission giving).

Which is why it's been very interesting to see how you handled these things differently from my default expectations - a lot of player control/table consensus in relation to alignment, and having the factions become tools for the players rather than tools for the GM.

The other apsect of Planescape which I've tended to see as hindering narrativist play is the fairly heavy metaplot - all the stuff that Shemeska seems, from his posts, to be into - but in the game you're describing it doesn't seem to have played much of a role.

Anyway, this thread reinforces my belief that there's nothing like discussion about actual play to show us what a system and/or setting can do, and how!

 

[Quickleaf]

(And I've used a lot of it in my old Rolemaster games, again shorn of the alignment baggage.)

Rolemaster? You are a brave brave man.

The other apsect of Planescape which I've tended to see as hindering narrativist play is the fairly heavy metaplot - all the stuff that Shemeska seems, from his posts, to be into - but in the game you're describing it doesn't seem to have played much of a role.

Funny I've found [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] 's ideas for Planescape to be really compelling! By "meta-plot" do you mean stuff like the Blood War and the Lady of Pain?

We had a plot in our old game around the Lady of Pain's secret, but it never seemed to hinder the players' freedom or creativity. It started as flavor I used as DM, then the players started actively wondering about it more, then around 8th level I started to crystallize a clearer sense of what "The Truth" about the Lady might be (in our campaign). And it wasn't until the end of the campaign at 14th/15th level that I made a final decision and revealed the specifics to the players.

One sentence summary: The Lady of Pain came to be when the first Sensate took on the "greatest pain" from her beloved, a godling demon prince, and was forever transformed by it.

A lot of it was based on the PCs' attitudes toward the Sensate philosophy and inter-faction conflict. Some was based on innocent DM eavesdropping to the players. And a little was based on a 'proof of concept' adventure I ran in which the PCs got to make a decision that actually determined part of the Lady's nature (it was a "the question is the answer" situation).

Not sure if that's "meta-plot" or not...I've never had a good grasp of what that means.

Anyway, this thread reinforces my belief that there's nothing like discussion about actual play to show us what a system and/or setting can do, and how!

It's nice talking to RPG theory savvy people who can talk plainly! Especially for me - I tend to get overwhelmed by Forge-speak and resort to gesticulating "but that's what happened at the table last night I swear!"

 

[Balesir]

(1) In contemporary moral philosophy, what you describe is sometimes marked by the distinction concept/conception - so in your example, there would be a struggle around competing conceptions of the concept of lawful goodness.

Yes, that's quite a good way of putting it. The "concepts" are there, but because of the "belief becomes reality" idea their nature is subject to moulding via a consensus of conceptions. This may involve conflicts.

(2) If I'm getting a feel that you're talking about narrativist play but with a very heavy underpinning of exploration of a range of moral beliefs, am I on the right track?

Bear in mind that, as I said above, we never really got to play PS with a Narrativist focus. It's simply that, as we played it with our Sim focus, the potential for Narrativist branches "popped out" at me. Sadly, the game had to break up (why does life keep interfering with roleplaying?) before any exploration in that direction could happen.

Also, the "moral" angle is just one option; there is also the 'Faction' angle, and the way that alignment and faction interact. The Harmonium, for example, as mentioned by [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], believes in "harmony through superior firepower" - or, in slightly more nuanced terms, "harmony is the most important value, and those who are unharmonius can only be included in that harmony by compulsion". This is almost set up for there to be a clash of some kind between a Harmonium Paladin's faction and alignment; but "you can lead a player to drama, but you can't make him think"...

In light of what you have said here, the question about narrativist play in Planescape becomes - are the parameters and possibilities for resolution of these conflicts already settled by the source material, or are they to be worked out in play as driven by the convictions and concerns of the participants in the game?

The potential is certainly there for coercion and predetermined answer play, because the "source system" (2E AD&D) was, on the face of it, prescriptive about alignment. The Factions, simply by "virtue" of their nature (similar to political parties) will act to protect their own "orthodoxy". But I don't recall (it's been a while) that the setting material reinforced this, at all. Quite the opposite, just through the maxim of "reality is what you (collectively) believe it to be".

This is why I'm putting so much weight on the alignment issue, and also a degree of weight on the factional loyalty issue (what Quickleaf calls "factions as top-down mission givers"). Because these are the main ways in which resolution can be predetermined, by the source material as applied/adjudicated by the GM.

Nothing stops a DM deciding that "everybody else disagrees with you and won't change their minds", and so determining the answers without reference to the players. That's just the nature of DM-ed play, I think, and there are no systemic mechanisms for changing reality on the level of alignments and "crowd psychology" - because it's D&D we're talking about.

Nevertheless, if a group wants to play with these concepts, the basic nature of the setting as described caters to that.

Whereas consensus resolution of alignment issues, or (as in Balesir's example) allowing competing conceptions of Lawful Good to fight it out - with the players, via their PCs, taking sides in that conflict - is a way of avoiding that GM force and predetermination, and instead putting these questions into the centre of play as questions to be settled, rather than as answers to be discovered.

In the setting as written, reality in it's totality is a "question to be settled". Whether a particular DM or player group can "grok" this, given the mechanical support in AD&D, is another matter entirely.

 

[pemerton]

Rolemaster? You are a brave brave man.

I GMed Rolemaster for 19 years (1990-2008) - it's the biggest component of my GMing experience. Two campaigns (90-97, 98-08). I learned a lot about GMing, a lot about the relationship between mechanics and playstyle, and FAR TOO MUCH about the Rolemaster lookup tables!

I love Rolemaster PC building. I enjoy some of, but not all of, Rolemaster action resolution (on the whole it gets better at mid-to-high levels, although still has issues, and some new issues arise at those levels). I really don't like Rolemaster encounter design.

We had a plot in our old game around the Lady of Pain's secret, but it never seemed to hinder the players' freedom or creativity. It started as flavor I used as DM, then the players started actively wondering about it more, then around 8th level I started to crystallize a clearer sense of what "The Truth" about the Lady might be (in our campaign). And it wasn't until the end of the campaign at 14th/15th level that I made a final decision and revealed the specifics to the players.

One sentence summary: The Lady of Pain came to be when the first Sensate took on the "greatest pain" from her beloved, a godling demon prince, and was forever transformed by it.

A lot of it was based on the PCs' attitudes toward the Sensate philosophy and inter-faction conflict. Some was based on innocent DM eavesdropping to the players. And a little was based on a 'proof of concept' adventure I ran in which the PCs got to make a decision that actually determined part of the Lady's nature (it was a "the question is the answer" situation).

Not sure if that's "meta-plot" or not...I've never had a good grasp of what that means.

What you describe here is more like the opposite of metaplot - there's a significant but ill-defined background element, and you (as GM) fill in the details, a bit here and a bit there, some of it revealed to the players/PCs, some of it purely in the background being used to shape future reveals. (From your description, I'm not sure who had control over the timing of the final reveal - you or the players.)

Metaplot, at least as I understand it, is canonical backstory that is known to the GM, gradually drip fed to the players, and used by the GM to organise the campaign and its scenarios around. So the PCs find themselves in scenario XYZ, and this ends up contributing some minor thing or other to the Great Modron March. (Or whatever it might be.)

Speakign more loosely, I think "metaplot" whenever the PCs end up being the pawns of some scheme that makes sense only to the GM in light of his/her big picture of the campaign - so that the real meaning of the events in the game come not from what the players contributed, but from this "secret" meaning that they have in light of what only the GM knows (at least at first, until the GM does the "big reveal" to the players).

This sort of GM-driven "big reveal" play is at odds with narrativism, because it puts the meaning of things in the GM's hands rather than the players' hands. Conversely, keeping setting, NPC motivations, etc flexibile, and working them out in tandem with the players actuall playing the game, and in response to the choices of the players as a vehicle for building on those choices, I think reinforces the players' contribution to meaning in the game. The Burning Wheel Adventure Builder talks about the campaign setting, built up in this way, as being a sort-of "history" of the campaign as actually played.

 

[Shemeska]

Rolemaster? You are a brave brave man.


Funny I've found [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] 's ideas for Planescape to be really compelling! By "meta-plot" do you mean stuff like the Blood War and the Lady of Pain?

I've generally run my games by giving the PCs as much freedom as possible to do whatever they want, with the knowledge that there's a world outside of and beyond them, and the parts that they aren't interacting with are going to go on and develop on their own. I usually have multiple "metaplots" going on at once, tied in loose ways and interacting on various levels, with the PCs initially running into one of them from the start, and touching upon/evolving/breaking the others depending on how they do things. However it's less fair to say that I have metaplots than I like to have strong, passionate NPCs with their own goals, and they'll be working on them just as much as the PCs are working on their own.

For instance:
PCs start out wanting to take down my forum namesake
My forum namesake wants to gain favor of the Oinoloth
The Oinoloth wants his puppet in Sigil to do what he wants
The Oinoloth also wants to thumb his nose at the baernaloths
The baernaloths of the Demented want the Oinoloth to just behave and do what they want
Other baernaloths have their own opinions on the matter
Other non-loths have their own opinions on the matter

The PCs untimately end up interacting with almost all of the major players above, becoming major players themselves in the downright byzantine politics of the Gray Waste, Gehenna, and Carceri. As much as possible, I want to provide meaningful PC interaction with and/or disruption or co-option of anything other major NPCs are up to in the world at large within the general focus of the campaign.

The next campaign the PCs ran a few things off the rails of where I had in my mind things likely to be going (and in the process they legitimately toppled Bel the Lord of the 1st layer of Hell, and politically brought down Dagos of the Dark 8). I adore that sort of unexpected ramifications of PC actions and motivation while I'm working on what's going on within the larger sphere of the campaign world. Define as metaplot or not as you wish.