Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Bedrockgames]

I don't agree with most of what you're saying here. But wanted to point out that there is no such thing as a conflict resolution mechanic in a game just like there is no such thing as narrative resolution outside of a story.

Game mechanics define the game constructs that make up games. There are no narrative components to games. Including conflict, which is a narrative device.

What the Big Model does is use narrative theory and hundreds of narrative terms and uses them exclusively in reference to games. And never references actual game design theory from the hundreds of years prior to it. It is not just the whitewashing of roleplaying games and peoples thoughts, but all games in general. Which is what it purports to be. A theory that explains all games.

Nowhere else will you see the belief that all games require the act of performing a character and therefore all gamers must have a "stance" and all games must be treated as "fictional narrative". There are no narrative in games because games are simply different. Making all things stories is the uniformity of groupthink bordering on fascism from that community.

I mean, stories don't even exist except as a culture. It's simply a long tradition of ideas. Not an actuality. No one should let their culture be conformed into another's, especially narrative culture, just because of some determinedly close-minded people.

i am not into game theory and I am not into big model. But mechanics do exist that resolve conflict. An attack roll is exactly that. A diplomacy roll is exactly that. Now maybe the term has some additional connotation associated with the big model that perturb you, but I am not using it in any kind of sense related to narrative (though certainly it could be applied to narrative). I am not talking about conflict resolution in the academic sense. I am literally talking about dice rolls for determining the outcomes of conflict in the game. That does exist and is a feature of RPGs.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Remember when we were off on that tangent about stat generation? I like that conversation so much more than John Wick's or howandwhy99's needlessly restrictive definitions of RPGs. (And I don't mind listening to John Wick's videos at times.)

I know, I know, it was a tangent. Now back to arguing over the basic definition of role playing. As absurd as that it, in my opinion.

 

[howandwhy99]

i am not into game theory and I am not into big model. But mechanics do exist that resolve conflict. An attack roll is exactly that. A diplomacy roll is exactly that. Now maybe the term has some additional connotation associated with the big model that perturb you, but I am not using it in any kind of sense related to narrative (though certainly it could be applied to narrative). I am not talking about conflict resolution in the academic sense. I am literally talking about dice rolls for determining the outcomes of conflict in the game. That does exist and is a feature of RPGs.

That belief didn't even exist prior to the Big Model. That's what I'm saying. I believe you are being honest with me. You aren't pretending what you have typed here. The ideas in that one true wayism have become so ingrained as to be believed as basic certainty. So I posted what I posted. Conflict resolution never actually occurs at the gaming table. That is a theory and one that doesn't relate to games because the players aren't in conflict necessarily. Conflict is a player judgement. Not an absolute as it is in that theory.

Attack rolls are random number generations which determine the results within a predetermined game system. You move around a game board after the roll. That's what occurs behind the screen.

 

[prosfilaes]

If RPGs are games, then it matters here. It's what leads game design so players can engage in game play.

So isomorphism was the correct word. RPGs are not games for the purposes of combinatorial game theory, as they involve randomness. If you can find a way to express such a simple game as poker as a code, go ahead, but I'm pretty sure that's beyond anything that anyone has studied.

There is virtually no relationship between the two,

In My Life with Master, you have two stats, and you roll dice based on those stats to manipulate the world around you; in these rolls, you can only get the larger dice if you convince the GM they're situationally appropriate. If you are successful enough in your dice rolls, you can kill the BBEG, with the how well you survive depending on your final stats. That's an RPG by pretty much any definition. It's also a story game. You can say there is virtually no relationship between the two all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Making stories and playing games are two completely different acts.

The only way this is true is if you define "playing games" so that it is true.

 

[Hussar]

In no way is role playing about stories. This is an algorithm at best being discerned.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Illusion-of-Game-Balance/page26#ixzz3GpT6ixz1

Give me an example of a role play that lacks setting, character and plot. Because, if you have those three, then you have story. Every single role play, whether in game form or as a teaching tool, clearly has all three. "Student A, you are a waiter, Student B, you are the customer, Student B, using your English skills, order lunch from the menu at the restaurant. Student A, take Student B's order".

That's a story. That has every single element of a story. There's nothing not a story about that.

So, instead of telling me that role playing is not about stories, show me. Give me examples of what you mean, because, I've been gaming for over thirty years and been a teacher for more than half of that, and I'm going to tell you that it's not possible to role play without a story.

 

[Hussar]

'

Whether one characterizes something as a story is a bit subjective. And like I said story has multiple meanings, some of which will apply to most RPGs. A man telling the President not to touch his wife at the voting booth was a story in the news but it was also a real event that happened. People went to the event were not there to experience a story they were there to participate in an actual moment in time. For sandboxes, that is more the experience they are after. And I think the goal for them is not a story, therefore story is emergent, not the purpose. I think they are coming from a reasonable position in that respect. Where I think people go wrong is trying to say story doesn't exist there or that we can;t use the word story to talk about in game events.

But where I think your post starts getting into the realm that creates problems in these discussions is you pivot on that very broad and basic meaning of "story" to then say sandbox is all about narrative control. I think that is not the case. Narrative control is about conscious manipulation of plot and events external to your character. Sandbox is about inhabiting a single character and exploring a world through that character. A character in a sandbox campaign has the same level of narrative control over its experience as I do over my experience. Your definition of narrative control then would stretch it so far that it is essentially meaningless because every game ever made has it. But we know when we talk about narrative control in games we are not referring to taking actions through your character, we are talking about things that allow you to edit the script or the "fiction", to assume powers over the setting that a sandbox game would limit to the GM.

The problem with saying "you should therefore tell a good story" is once you do that now you really are focusing story as a literary concept. It suggests that a game shouldn't just have mechanics for resolving conflict but it should propel narrative forward and that a good adventure should have themes and make use of pacing and plot devices. I don't think this is true. Sure for some people that is what they want from a game and that is what they expect from an adventure, but I really have no desire for such things. This is a taste issue. And this kind of rhetoric is exactly why people are so hostile to the word story in RPGs. If you are going to use it to just talk about the stuff that happened in game, no one will care. But if you turn on that to tell people how they should play and how their games should be designed, as if that is the only or the best way, then you will meet resistance and the term will continue to generate a negative response from some gamers.

Yet, funnily enough, virtually every single session of a good sandbox game will have at least one event similar to your news story. You would not characterise a sandbox game where several sessions pass with nothing of interest happening as a good sandbox game would you? The players go looking for adventure, and, lo and behold, they find adventure. A sandbox where you never found adventure would be a pretty poor sandbox.

So, even in a sandbox, there is someone there (the DM in conjunction with the players) making sure that every session brings about interesting events. AKA stories.

Narrative control can be defined as "players taking actions outside the conrol of their characters" and that's certainly one definition. But, in a larger sense, narrative, ie. story, control is exactly what happens in a Sandbox game. Again, while there might not be direct mechanics at play, the player's choices will always lead to interesting play. Or at least should. In a sandbox game, you never go into that hole in the ground and find it empty after several sessions of exploration. That kingdom will always have something troubling it that needs the player's attention. The players might not have narrative control in the limited sense, but, the DM and the players certainly do.

In a sandbox game, if my character's background is that he's looking for his long lost sister, in a good sandbox, I'm going to FIND my long, lost sister.

Narative control and author stance are not the same thing. You want to play entirely in Actor stance, and that's fine, but, claiming that in sandboxes, players have no control over the narrative is not accurate. They most certainly do, since the narrative in a sandbox is largely generated by the players.

 

[howandwhy99]

So isomorphism was the correct word. RPGs are not games for the purposes of combinatorial game theory, as they involve randomness. If you can find a way to express such a simple game as poker as a code, go ahead, but I'm pretty sure that's beyond anything that anyone has studied.

That's easy. Poker is a game and entirely part of math. Some people play poker only as a mathematical betting game, never bluffing. And deck draws are mathematically random because the deck is predetermined. It's the players that aren't going to be limited to math because they change too quickly. But players should not be confused with the game. Games are separate from people.

In My Life with Master, you have two stats, and you roll dice based on those stats to manipulate the world around you;

No, they don't. There is no game board a referee generated behind a screen that must be altered based on your relayed intended manipulation.

in these rolls, you can only get the larger dice if you convince the GM they're situationally appropriate.

Which makes the GM a player and no longer capable of running an RPG.

If you are successful enough in your dice rolls, you can kill the BBEG, with the how well you survive depending on your final stats. That's an RPG by pretty much any definition.

Luck is only part of game play when it is a probability and therefore can be gamed. Players are gaming when they game the game. Game the system that is the game. They make decisions which may lead to sequential numeric probabilities, the results of which are determined with actual dice rolls, random number generators. (no conflict ever occurs). If players play well and the game system involves play within it as performing a social role the player must actually perform, then they are role playing and game playing all at once. They are playing a role playing game. What you've said doesn't really get into the game design underpinning common warrior RPG designs, just common practices.

It's also a story game.

Frankly. it's not even a game because there's no game system to be played. But it is group story making with some random elements thrown in as part of the practices to make those stories.

You can say there is virtually no relationship between the two all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Games are designed to test player physical and mental abilities. Sport games mainly test physical performance. All other games test mental abilities. And there is overlap. But without memory and strategy there isn't a mental game occurring.

Stories don't occur in either instance and invention isn't especially required in either instance.

The only way this is true is if you define "playing games" so that it is true.

Lets not playing language games. Playing a games doesn't require players to innovate. They must discern. D&D allows both, but it is unique that way.
And incidentally role playing isn't a language game either.

 

[prosfilaes]

That's easy. Poker is a game and entirely part of math.

I'm convinced you don't know what you mean when you say game playing is code breaking, or at least can't explain it coherently.

There is no game board a referee generated behind a screen that must be altered based on your relayed intended manipulation.

Yes, there is. NPCs can die just like in any other game, which has effects on the game world, and that's tracked on your theoretical game board.

Which makes the GM a player and no longer capable of running an RPG.

Then there never has been a GM capable of running an RPG. It's no different then a DM adjudicating the results of a rogue trying to hide or trying to swing on a chandelier. That's what GMs do in RPGs.

Frankly. it's not even a game because there's no game system to be played.

Are you actually familiar with My Life With Master? Boiled down to its game mechanical essence, you're rolling dice to try and put enough points into Love so your character wins at the end of the game. What's more gamey then that? There are RPG aspects where you have to describe your characters actions, and your goals may be more subtle then just that, but those are very RPGlike aspects.

Lets not playing language games.

But that's exactly what we're doing. You cannot argue for a new definition for a word without playing language games.

 

[howandwhy99]

Give me an example of a role play that lacks setting, character and plot.

My dog is a setting, character, and plot. So are we. Your map isn't reality. Stop demanding I disprove your beliefs as obviously false. You can project your stubborn understanding onto everything. You can stop doing that. Me making you stop is a waste of both of our time. Open your mind and quit banging on the drum of "Story Now, Story Always, Story Only!"

That's a story. That has every single element of a story. There's nothing not a story about that.

You keep repeating Story Element A, Story Element B, C, D, E, and these are always, always, always part of what you know we are all doing. We must be doing. Except some of us aren't. Stop being so certain and open your mind to other possibilities.

So, instead of telling me that role playing is not about stories, show me. Give me examples of what you mean, because, I've been gaming for over thirty years and been a teacher for more than half of that, and I'm going to tell you that it's not possible to role play without a story.

Your a teacher? That's role playing. Your a gamer? That's role playing. Know any doctors, lawyers, parents? Still role playing. If you perform a social role, either in reality or fantasy, you are role playing. Do you need to perform a fictional persona to role play? NO! But isn't that what D&D is? Absolutely not! That wasn't part of role playing until the 80s and not part of this game.

Is there a game construct that must be drawn out like any game board is prior to each and every game session by a D&D referee? YES! So you can game it.

Is that map actually navigated with other players where you succeed at the game, get role playing points (XP), and actually improve at the role by playing the game? YES! This is gaming and roleplaying where you performing the role is the gaming of the game.

Is there fiction going on here? NO. Like any game the game construct must be actualized prior to play.
Is there a plot you must follow? NO. Players may do anything within the game design just like any actual game.
Is there a setting? NO. Fictions have settings, games can only be made to resemble other realities.

There is an actual game structure that must be generated by the referee and drawn out ahead of time. Pieces of it may be called "the setting" or "a character", but none of them actually are any of those things. Those are borrowed terms from stories to refer to elements of games instead. This is how D&D was created. By borrowing words from other practices like writing and acting because game theory hadn't expanded this far yet.

These are not reasons to torch games or game theory and supplant them with narrative theory.
Edit: removed last line

 

[Bedrockgames]

In a sandbox game, if my character's background is that he's looking for his long lost sister, in a good sandbox, I'm going to FIND my long, lost sister.
.

I think we are largely quibbling over terms with the other points in your post and both of us already know we strongly disagree over the value and accuracy of forge terminology. On that subject I will just say I think 'narrative' is much more loaded and problematic than 'story' though perhaps I am bringing my background in history to that particular word. But on the above point, I think you are wrong and this points to why saying sandbox players are there for story is misguided. I don't know a lot of things but I do know sandbox players. There are sandbox players who would agree with the above statement but most would not. But the vast majority would say in a good sandbox finding your sister should never be a forgone conclusion just because it is in your background. If might happen, it might not. The GM gets to decide if finding her remains a possibility and where you would need to go to learn about it. You can certainly set out to find your sister, that doesn't mean you will encounter any clues or leads. For most sandbox players 'say yes' isn't something they expect and they are also not expecting a good story. Do they expect fun and excitement? Certainly they at least expect the opportunity for these things....but fun and excitement are not synonyms for story.

I agree you can speak of in game events as story in the very broad meaning of the word, but then once you turn the word toward a more specific meaning to start arguing that RPGs are all about story and those that fail to tell good stories are not successful RPGs, I think the logic breaks down.