At the Intersection of Skilled Play, System Intricacy, Prep, and Story Now

[AbdulAlhazred]

Players can have as much freedom and agency as the GM gives them.
The issue is that for the last 30+ years, published D&D material is teaching GMs to give them little to none.

Part of the problem is you publish a module, and its hard to devise it such that the GM doesn't have to deploy sufficient force to move the PCs through it all and not miss anything. That's what I see, for instance, in 5e, a game system that is optimized for module play. And at that modules that are largely 'paths' of some sort (though some do take on a bit more of the character of sandboxes). Even assuming a module took on some strong themes and challenged the PCs with them, it would still obviously have the character of largely the GM's story. There are other elements to classic D&D that contribute, like task-based resolution, fiction at the end, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You start by saying you don't see the incentives and then provide an escape of such. The game rewards play towards Gamist ends by delivering the desired outcomes of played towards them. That you can lose doesn't remove incentives. I can, with my play, increase the chances of getting a desired outcome and the game enables this by having narrowed outcome space and tools available to game towards desired outcomes.

Agenda, Gamist or Narrativist, is simply a CLASSIFICATION of goals. Skilled Play works for either one, but they are still different games, and which type of goal is catered to by a given game design is obviously up to the details of that design. In the case of MLwM I think its a Narrativist game design. It would be wrong to say that because people are playing well (in a skilled way) that that implies Gamism. Of course we are then brought back to RE's observation about these two classes of agenda, that they share a lot in terms of having similar mechanical needs. I think the reward system in the case of MLwM makes it more Narratively focused though, but I'm kinda guessing, having little play experience with it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I believe you believe that. That you cannot see that having to come to a consensus agreement with another player over a conflict means that one or both of you is choosing to no longer engage in full throated protagonism for their PC so that a compromise solution can be achieved is a bit of a blind spot.

I still think you're too 'zero sum' here. The intersection of the needs of the two protagonists could turn out to create a really interesting and "greater than the sum of the parts" outcome! Frankly, this is the sort of thing I'm aiming for when I GM a game like this, that the story address all the players at once (as opposed to the alternative where you kind of awkwardly weave plots together, or PCs go off on their own all the time).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agenda, Gamist or Narrativist, is simply a CLASSIFICATION of goals. Skilled Play works for either one, but they are still different games, and which type of goal is catered to by a given game design is obviously up to the details of that design. In the case of MLwM I think its a Narrativist game design. It would be wrong to say that because people are playing well (in a skilled way) that that implies Gamism. Of course we are then brought back to RE's observation about these two classes of agenda, that they share a lot in terms of having similar mechanical needs. I think the reward system in the case of MLwM makes it more Narratively focused though, but I'm kinda guessing, having little play experience with it.

Good thing I didn't say that?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I still think you're too 'zero sum' here. The intersection of the needs of the two protagonists could turn out to create a really interesting and "greater than the sum of the parts" outcome! Frankly, this is the sort of thing I'm aiming for when I GM a game like this, that the story address all the players at once (as opposed to the alternative where you kind of awkwardly weave plots together, or PCs go off on their own all the time).

Well, I'll remind you it's conflict resolution, so there's already a contention for desired outcomes involved. If both players want the same outcome, there's no conflict to resolve, which brings in another point that there isn't always honesty antagonism to overcome. That puts play in the mode of authoring, not testing. Authoring a character isn't Story Now. There must be honest antagonism to put pressure on the PC's dramatic needs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I'll remind you it's conflict resolution, so there's already a contention for desired outcomes involved. If both players want the same outcome, there's no conflict to resolve, which brings in another point that there isn't always honesty antagonism to overcome. That puts play in the mode of authoring, not testing. Authoring a character isn't Story Now. There must be honest antagonism to put pressure on the PC's dramatic needs.

Why does it have to be against each other? Nor is all conflict of ANY kind zero sum, in fact very little is really. So the players can be on the same side! Or they can have some variation of mutual interests, or each simply think that getting half a loaf is better than none. Or many other possible things. You seem to be assuming that the antagonism is PvP here.

Now, I do think its true that there is a degree to which the Czege Principle will kind of dictate that, in a game with round-robin style story telling, that one guy is going to tell a part of the story that challenges ANOTHER guy's character, etc. OK, but all of the above is still in play, at the CHARACTER level, so they can all advocate for their own character and still 'make a deal' to produce a story that factors in all their interests.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why does it have to be against each other? Nor is all conflict of ANY kind zero sum, in fact very little is really. So the players can be on the same side! Or they can have some variation of mutual interests, or each simply think that getting half a loaf is better than none. Or many other possible things. You seem to be assuming that the antagonism is PvP here.

Now, I do think its true that there is a degree to which the Czege Principle will kind of dictate that, in a game with round-robin style story telling, that one guy is going to tell a part of the story that challenges ANOTHER guy's character, etc. OK, but all of the above is still in play, at the CHARACTER level, so they can all advocate for their own character and still 'make a deal' to produce a story that factors in all their interests.

Because the only way for there to be a conflict in a consensus resolution game is if two players have a difference of opinion! There is no other source of conflict because there is no GM providing the rule of abrasions seperate from having a PC. In Montsegur 1244, there are card decks that provide conflict, but the resolution of such is up b the players via consensus, so the only place you have conflict is between competing player opinions of what should happen.

In Fiasco, there's one person with authority over scene framing and a different person with authority over resolution. In between, any conflict that occurs is consensus resolved. In case of absolute loggerheads, IIRC the person who's turn it is gets to say, but if it comes to this point things are in trouble because no there's direct competition to dive the story in different directions and not to build it together, which is the point of the game.

Look, you can roleplay with conviction a character in these games, but the point of the game isn't to find out who these characters are, but to tell a shared story. The story telling has primacy of place in the agenda and design of these games. There is no real room for skilled play in Montsegur 1244 or in Fiasco because both use systems that are all about getting the rest of the table to agree with your play. There are no resources to deploy and no system to leverage outside of the goodwill of your peers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because the only way for there to be a conflict in a consensus resolution game is if two players have a difference of opinion! There is no other source of conflict because there is no GM providing the rule of abrasions seperate from having a PC. In Montsegur 1244, there are card decks that provide conflict, but the resolution of such is up b the players via consensus, so the only place you have conflict is between competing player opinions of what should happen.

In Fiasco, there's one person with authority over scene framing and a different person with authority over resolution. In between, any conflict that occurs is consensus resolved. In case of absolute loggerheads, IIRC the person who's turn it is gets to say, but if it comes to this point things are in trouble because no there's direct competition to dive the story in different directions and not to build it together, which is the point of the game.

Look, you can roleplay with conviction a character in these games, but the point of the game isn't to find out who these characters are, but to tell a shared story. The story telling has primacy of place in the agenda and design of these games. There is no real room for skilled play in Montsegur 1244 or in Fiasco because both use systems that are all about getting the rest of the table to agree with your play. There are no resources to deploy and no system to leverage outside of the goodwill of your peers.

Well, I am not in the best position to comment more deeply on those two games, but I don't think the general case is made, at all. Lets think about this:

You and I (A and O) are playing some hypothetical GM-less RPG in which we somehow share authority over constructing the fiction. OK, actually, lets question that formulation, first. Do we have authority over fictional position or not? Maybe there's some other game process which takes care of that. I'm going to choose to explore the former proposition though, with the proviso that I've made a game design choice that could be unworkable. Finally lets honor some form of the Czege Principle (CP) here, as that seems like a pretty accepted concept, in general, again with the proviso that we may need to carefully examine it and see if it perhaps has 'weaker' and 'stronger' forms, etc.

So, A and O somehow produce a fiction, and the characters are somehow placed within it, and some aspect of how that fiction is created, or a third process will then push the characters into action by engaging them in a thematically relevant way (operationalizing the premise). We are both concerned with story, and we are expected to do our part by carrying forward the character interaction with this premise, as appropriate to whichever character we are playing (Ca and Co let us say). Now, I'm going to presume here that Ca and Co interact in some fashion, otherwise there is no ONE story, right? They are both engaged with the same fictional elements and there's probably some direct relationship between them.

Now, your thesis is that I cannot build a system where A can both participate in authoring the fiction in a consensual manner with O, and still be an effective protagonist in the role of Ca. The CP is going to make this an interesting dance, but lets see where we can go with it. I hold that we can accomplish a good design that meets the criteria of Story Now, at least in a real-world sense. I agree with the thought in this thread that pure theorycrafting on this kind of thing is of limited value, so anything we were to come up with would potentially meet with THEORETICAL objections, but its what works in practice that I care about.

I don't know if all this is really something that can even be accomplished in a thread, there are a number of considerations, but maybe a kind of 'map' can be constructed and then used to build less and less abstract examples of play. I really don't see any other way to get past this kind of fundamental disagreement. So, anyway, I would put it to my bosses at work the opposite way "Oh boy! Look, here's a super great opportunity to improve our craft/process!" lol.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I am not in the best position to comment more deeply on those two games, but I don't think the general case is made, at all. Lets think about this:

You and I (A and O) are playing some hypothetical GM-less RPG in which we somehow share authority over constructing the fiction. OK, actually, lets question that formulation, first. Do we have authority over fictional position or not? Maybe there's some other game process which takes care of that. I'm going to choose to explore the former proposition though, with the proviso that I've made a game design choice that could be unworkable. Finally lets honor some form of the Czege Principle (CP) here, as that seems like a pretty accepted concept, in general, again with the proviso that we may need to carefully examine it and see if it perhaps has 'weaker' and 'stronger' forms, etc.

So, A and O somehow produce a fiction, and the characters are somehow placed within it, and some aspect of how that fiction is created, or a third process will then push the characters into action by engaging them in a thematically relevant way (operationalizing the premise). We are both concerned with story, and we are expected to do our part by carrying forward the character interaction with this premise, as appropriate to whichever character we are playing (Ca and Co let us say). Now, I'm going to presume here that Ca and Co interact in some fashion, otherwise there is no ONE story, right? They are both engaged with the same fictional elements and there's probably some direct relationship between them.

Now, your thesis is that I cannot build a system where A can both participate in authoring the fiction in a consensual manner with O, and still be an effective protagonist in the role of Ca. The CP is going to make this an interesting dance, but lets see where we can go with it. I hold that we can accomplish a good design that meets the criteria of Story Now, at least in a real-world sense. I agree with the thought in this thread that pure theorycrafting on this kind of thing is of limited value, so anything we were to come up with would potentially meet with THEORETICAL objections, but its what works in practice that I care about.

I don't know if all this is really something that can even be accomplished in a thread, there are a number of considerations, but maybe a kind of 'map' can be constructed and then used to build less and less abstract examples of play. I really don't see any other way to get past this kind of fundamental disagreement. So, anyway, I would put it to my bosses at work the opposite way "Oh boy! Look, here's a super great opportunity to improve our craft/process!" lol.

So, to sum up, you think there's a way around my objection that consensus resolution cuts against narrativism, but haven't found it yet (or at least haven't articulated it yet) and cannot point to an existing solution yet. Yes? Oh, and that everyone should remember that my argument is just theorycrafting and should be taken with salt. That's in there too, alongside all of the theorizing on a counterexample that hasn't yet born any fruit.

One may be marveled by the irony.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, to sum up, you think there's a way around my objection that consensus resolution cuts against narrativism, but haven't found it yet (or at least haven't articulated it yet) and cannot point to an existing solution yet. Yes? Oh, and that everyone should remember that my argument is just theorycrafting and should be taken with salt. That's in there too, alongside all of the theorizing on a counterexample that hasn't yet born any fruit.

One may be marveled by the irony.

I am simply outlining a program of analysis/research to address the question. It wasn't intended to be an attack on anyone's position. In terms of talking about 'theorycrafting' what I am saying is we won't derive stronger and more useful conclusions merely by inventing more examples. Now, going beyond that, and I think we'd need to go significantly beyond that, might turn out to be rather more than can be accomplished in a thread, so maybe you can object to the agenda on the basis of feasibility. However, I'm treating everything discussed as an open question, not me trying to prove something to you. That is, if such a project was undertaken, my feeling is it would support my position, but I'm not creating a hill to die on here. Its a hypothesis, not gospel.