That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[pemerton]

I prefer what Vincent Baker had to say here : RPG mechanics tell us what happens in the shared fiction full stop. They might be representative of how things work, but that is not their purpose. Their purpose is just to tell us what happens so play can move forward.

I can track down a quote later.

I think I know the quote:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .

So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

 

[aramis erak]

Its not clear how gold = xp is anything more than keeping score (which I think is what you're saying here and I don't know what Emerikol is saying about it) which also works with the rest of the system to create the carrot to "push on" rather than "retreat with the spoils we have (either because we're nearing encumbered or resource exhaustion."
[snip]

Like a great many things D&D, its (as you say) both an end and a means to facilitate the Skilled Play priority of classic D&D delving.

Not all, perhaps even most, D&D groups didn't drive for "skilled play"; many, perhaps even most, didn't use all the rules in the game. The one most often dropped was XP=Gold.

Nope, it's just score keeping, and a slightly odd one. But is the advancement mechanism, which pushes players to seek out gold as a goal.

Being a major part of advancement makes it separate than just score-keeping.

The whole point of 1GP=1XP is that it's not the killing that levels you up, but the looting. If you can do the looting without the killing, good on ye, bro!

It was supposed to be to get the minis players to focus on something other than the killing.

It failed.

It had a number of other odd effects... given the 1-2 GP a week for commoners income, it meant that Joe the Butcher could hit 2nd level as a fighter on his income as a butcher in about 5 years.

I prefer what Vincent Baker had to say here : RPG mechanics tell us what happens in the shared fiction full stop. They might be representative of how things work, but that is not their purpose. Their purpose is just to tell us what happens so play can move forward.

I can track down a quote later.

I think it's an incomplete view, but agree with it to the extent presented in your paraphrase.

But the actual quote is a problematic bit in context. It's an apparent dismissal of the GM role as arbiter of truth of setting. It also lacks the element that mechanics can add things to the narrative, not just resolve situations to allow moving on.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, lets be honest, the loot was generally scaled to the monsters for the most part. Bigger monsters equalled bigger loot woth the akilled play addition of figuring out which foes paid the best.

 

[Campbell]

But the actual quote is a problematic bit in context. It's an apparent dismissal of the GM role as arbiter of truth of setting. It also lacks the element that mechanics can add things to the narrative, not just resolve situations to allow moving on.

I think Vincent would say that the GM's role (if there even is one) is part of the rules of the game. That it's part of the mechanics/rules themselves. Same for who has the authority to declare something is true in the shared fiction.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think Vincent would say that the GM's role (if there even is one) is part of the rules of the game. That it's part of the mechanics/rules themselves. Same for who has the authority to declare something is true in the shared fiction.

Vincent is also talking about his own game. Which does not, for the record, dismiss the role of the GM, but rather constrains it to moderating the fiction at hand that emerges out of play, and obviates the notion that prescribed events should occur, i.e. prepped stuff

 

[Campbell]

Vincent is also talking about his own game. Which does not, for the record, dismiss the role of the GM, but rather constrains it to moderating the foction at hand that emerges out of play, and obviates the notion that prescribed events should occur, i.e. prepped stuff

That particular quote is addressing RPGs broadly and in a very game design centric way. He's talking to (mostly indie) designers there. It's also phrased very provocatively because Vincent.

 

[Fenris-77]

That particular quote is addressing RPGs broadly and in a very game design centric way. He's talking to (mostly indie) designers there. It's also phrased very provocatively because Vincent.

Yup, sure. but I find dyed in the wool D&D and OSR GMs are more likely to be precious about their perceived role and authority. That's not a criticism either, as much as sounds like one, as those GMs have had to forge their style from nothing because the games they play don't provide any of the mechanical support or direction that PbtA game do. A lot of those GMs tend to look at, say, Dungeon World, and immediately get upset at what they perceive to be a ton of constraints on how they run their game. In my experience though, the Keeper moves in good PbtA games tend to encompass pretty much anything a good D&D DM is doing anyway, it just takes some time and experience to realize it.

 

[S'mon]

It had a number of other odd effects... given the 1-2 GP a week for commoners income, it meant that Joe the Butcher could hit 2nd level as a fighter on his income as a butcher in about 5 years.

In what edition do you get XP for GP acquired without risk? Not 1e or 2e, 1e has a detailed system for reducing XP for low risk acquisition. And of course Level 0s don't earn XP.

 

[Emerikol]

REH's Conan is an inspiration for FRPGing. So is LotR. The latter does not involve acquiring gold from loot. There are the Barrow Blades, but those have much more backstory than the typical D&D module gives a +1 sword in the troll's treasure chest.

One of the best Conan stories is Tower of the Elephant. In D&D terms that episode would be a failure because Conan didn't get the jewels. In The Scarlet Citadel he befriends a magician which helps him reconquer Aquilonia, but he doesn't accrue significant amounts of gold.

In our Prince Valiant game the PCs have not acquired gold through looting dead bodies or buried treasure. They have taken arms and horses from defeated knights, and have taken castles by force.

The whole structure of much D&D play - the discrete encounter with the enemies to be defeated in battle so that their nearby treasure can be taken - is a game device.

It's the implied setting of D&D which was my point. It is an assumed characteristic of the world. And in many of your examples the rewards would be commensurate with the setting but people do tend to carry something of value if they are good enough to be challenging a D&D group. Not in 100% of the cases but in most cases.

But since it is an assumed characteristic of the world, the party doesn't have to place an inordinate amount of focus on merely acquiring gold for gold's sake. They can be confident whatever enemies they face will have some gold. There are many other motivations. Again you idea of a D&D game is a caricature and I'm sure you can find some ten year olds playing that style of game. Maybe even some really boring unimaginative adults. I don't have that problem. My groups are motivated by all sorts of things going on in the world. So having mechanical impetus is something I don't see as required to have good roleplaying. It can appear organically in almost any roleplaying situation if the group is trying and the DM is half good.

 

[Emerikol]

I think I know the quote:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .​

​

So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

I wouldn't subscribe to that philosophy at all. I can see how it fits though for some of the styles people here like to play.