Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[The Shadow]

Then there's Ben Robbins' games, which I gush about at every opportunity.

My group's favorite of his, Kingdom, doesn't have a GM at all and doesn't use any kind of randomizer. And it also has story emerge organically from the game. I assure you that none of us would have predicted ahead of time the twists and turns that our Kingdom games have taken!

Please do try to tell me how that game works by GM railroading and changing die rolls!

EDIT: I forgot, on rare occasions Kingdom breaks a tie between players whose characters have the same role, or when an action is needed by a missing role, by a kind of randomization - the players involved hold up zero to five fingers, and if the sum is even it goes one way, and if it's odd the other. I forgot it because my group has rarely needed it.

 

[bloodtide]

Just for starters, why are you assuming that the GM can "alter game reality at will" in our games? In a lot of story games (though not all), the fiction is the shared responsibility of everyone at the table.

You need to settle down. I know "railroad" is a trigger word, but just keep it in context. So I'm talking about where the DM or the Players or the DM and Players together all agree that there will be no character death in the game. In such a game, the DM can freely railroad as everyone agreed on it. So this is where the DM can alter the game reality to make sure character death never happens. The DM rolls a '20', nope DM says 'it;s a 2'. The 20th level lich arch wizard....attacks with the spell chill touch and not death blast. the vicious monsters "suddley" take the player characters prisoner as soon as the fight goes against the players.

Why are you assuming die rolls will be changed? My group never changes die rolls in our games, ever.

Lots of gamers do it. It's not unheard of.

Maybe you stop telling us how our games must be and start listening to what we say about them? Maybe we have more insight about our own games than you do?

I'm not sure where you see me doing what you say?

Basically, @bloodtide, what it comes down to is that you think we're playing the same kind of game you are, but badly. What we're telling you is that we're playing a different kind of game entirely.

I think what your missing is that I post something. You read it and post all sorts of the above. Well, if you were of the mind set that "I play my game" and "you play your game" I'd ask why you are even posting?

This is not correct.

In the games that facilitate the sort of play that @AbdulAlhazred is talking about, the system has a huge amount of say (which is why I've historically called this phenomena "system's say!").

You kind of lost me with "system say". Would that not be Player and DM say? If all the players and the DM all read the rule that says "no player character can ever die in this game", and everyone agrees to play that game with that rule....then it's both players and DMs agreeing....

 

[Manbearcat]

You kind of lost me with "system say". Would that not be Player and DM say? If all the players and the DM all read the rule that says "no player character can ever die in this game", and everyone agrees to play that game with that rule....then it's both players and DMs agreeing....

Would you say the following:

A Porsche 911 GT3 has a 7 speed PDK dual-clutch transmission and a flat 6 naturally aspirated engine...except not really, because any owner can have the gearbox changed and an alternative engine put in (even if the lack of integration of the new gearbox and engine creates a mess of the 911 GT3 driving experience)...so therefore, the Porsche 911 GT3 engineers effectively have "no say."

If you wouldn't say that...then why would you say the same thing about another engineering endeavor; a game?

Yes, the world is filled with humans that can, if we want to reduce things down sufficiently and flatten all complexity/variability, opt-in or opt-out of literally everything (even living itself!). But...I mean, at some point, things that are designed "have an inherent say (through that design and through the engineers/artists et al that did the design work)," right? That goes equally for physical stuff as it does for social systems/arrangements.

So where is your pivot point? What is your purity test for "yup...I guess the system/designers do have a say" vs "nope...this is just humans opting-in/opting-out so superstructure and system constraint has no meaningful say in things." And of course, this could be complicated further by questions around "what meaningfully constitutes say" (consciousness and free will questions), but let us just stick with what we have thus far.

When do engineers/artists and their designs/creations have "functionally binding say?"

My answer to that is partially in the above and partially not:

When the trade-offs for opting-out yield a net worse result (or at least significantly increase the prospects of a net worse result). Opt out of your default gearbox and engine of your Porsche 911 GT3 and you're almost certain to have an inferior experience with the vehicle. Opt out of "play to find out" or the action resolution paradigm (or myriad other things) of Blades in the Dark (the game @AbdulAlhazred was invoking) and you're almost certain to have an inferior experience with the vehicle (the "vehicle" in this situation being "the vehicle for play; the game").

 

[innerdude]

I have a very hard time taking the Forge seriously, even though I know intellectually that they have something to offer, because they are heavily biased against simulation as a style of play.

At the point in time I read the baseline / core GNS essays on the Forge (sometime around 2016) I would have called myself a gamist/simulationist hybrid, with slight leaning to simulationism.

I personally didn't find the core essays to be terribly biased against simulationism, and as far as I can tell, Ron Edwards had quite a bit of personal affinity for Runequest, which is a veritable poster child for the "sim" agenda. I didn't review any of the broader forum discussions, though, so I can imagine there may have been some strident, ardent communiques decrying simulationism by other participants.

The core essays mostly seem to convey, "we acknowledge the phenomenon of simulationism as evident and real, but it's not a particular focus or pursuit within our inquiry, so we're mostly going to leave it alone." Which I was fine with, mostly, with a few quibbles.

I think at the time I was somewhat disappointed that the GNS core theory didn't delve into simulationism more, as it felt like it could be expounded upon. Most of my own learnings from simulationism were tied to my exploration of GURPS, and trying to fully register just how much a game reliant on "process sim input / output" felt like something I didn't really want. I wanted "enough" "sim" inputs/outputs, but not too many.

I can also admit that the Forge's analysis of sim felt too . . . mundane? Too rational? GNS didn't hold up simulationism on an elevated pedestal like I wanted it to. It was very matter of fact --- "Sure, you can play this way if you'd like. It's no better or worse than the others."

That didn't feel right to my personal . . . id, I suppose. I was emotionally invested in wanting "simulationism" to be better than the others. I was romanticizing it in a way that's been talked about in other threads, and that romanticism didn't play well with the process of analyzing what this playstyle is actually doing.

 

[pemerton]

I have a very hard time taking the Forge seriously, even though I know intellectually that they have something to offer, because they are heavily biased against simulation as a style of play.

My view is that this claim of bias is false. Ron Edwards's essay on simulationism is the most insightful thing I've ever read about how RM, RQ, Pendragon and games in the general vein work - far more insightful, for instance, than anything I ever read on the official ICE Rolemaster forums.

What the Forge does assert is that simulationist RPGing won't satisfy non-simulationist priorities (such as "story" or "drama") - which is something that you appear to agree with!, as per this post:

This is why you and I rarely see eye to eye. I am a simulationist. The integrity of the setting is the most important factor to me, creating a plausible fantasy world for the PCs to interact with and inhabit on its own terms. Generating a satisfying and dramatic narrative is a secondary concern.

 

[Umbran]

You kind of lost me with "system say". Would that not be Player and DM say?

If the game system has no mechanic in it through which the character is declared "dead", it isn't "GM and Players say".

If all the players and the DM all read the rule that says "no player character can ever die in this game", and everyone agrees to play that game with that rule....then it's both players and DMs agreeing....

That's a fairly reductive argument, and it gets in the way of understanding how and why the games are built they way they are, and it doesn't support the first section of your post:

I'm talking about where the DM or the Players or the DM and Players together all agree that there will be no character death in the game. In such a game, the DM can freely railroad as everyone agreed on it. So this is where the DM can alter the game reality to make sure character death never happens.

If no death is in the game design, then there's no railroading. The DM does not need to alter reality. No dice need to be changed, ignored, or overridden. Death is not a result the rules can generate, so no effort or changes are required to get the desired result.

 

[bloodtide]

Would you say the following:

I guess this is the "factory default" question? I can say a car is "factory default" only if you never ever change anything on the car. But I'm not sure where your examples is going?

When do engineers/artists and their designs/creations have "functionally binding say?"

I feel like your out on some way far out tangent. I don't care at all about what other people think of anything.

But I guess your doing a version of my Bicycle Example, that I use when people tell me "D&D is broken" or "monks are weak" or "whatever is whatever because of the game rules". My response is my Bicycle Example. That is how you choose to use the rules effects the game. You get a Bicycle, carry it over to a trail full of deep thick mud. You set the bike down, get on it and sink and get stuck in the mud: then say "the Bicycle is Broken". It's not the bike, it's how you are using it.

But what are you getting at?

Because this is how internet arguments go.

There is frequently a "creeping strawman" effect, where someone who disagrees restates a position as slightly more severe than it is. Then a little more. Then a little more, until the position is equivalent to eating babies, or something. The discussion becomes an argument over the extreme poles, and any and all nuance is squeezed out.

I for one would LOVE to have this so called Middle point. If someone could give it to me.

As you can see I run an extremely Hard Fun Old School Unfair Unbalanced game. It drives lots of players away. And drives drama up to 11, for he makesexample Jill is one of my regular players: her husband hates the way I run the game and refuses to game with us. So he makes weekly drama as he follows his wife around to rant, complain and be toxic(until the game starts and I can toss him out).

I love the True Randomness of Anything can happen. I even hold it up as an alternative to all other fiction.

I also find Character Death any time makes players care more about their character AND has them pay attention during the game at all times.

But, where is the middle ground?

 

[The Shadow]

My view is that this claim of bias is false. Ron Edwards's essay on simulationism is the most insightful thing I've ever read about how RM, RQ, Pendragon and games in the general vein work - far more insightful, for instance, than anything I ever read on the official ICE Rolemaster forums.

I agree that his essays are excellent. Edwards in his Forge posts has been far more intemperate at times, notoriously and egregiously so. Maybe that's changed, I haven't stopped by the Forge in quite a while.

 

[innerdude]

You need to settle down. I know "railroad" is a trigger word, but just keep it in context. So I'm talking about where the DM or the Players or the DM and Players together all agree that there will be no character death in the game. In such a game, the DM can freely railroad as everyone agreed on it. So this is where the DM can alter the game reality to make sure character death never happens. The DM rolls a '20', nope DM says 'it;s a 2'. The 20th level lich arch wizard....attacks with the spell chill touch and not death blast. the vicious monsters "suddley" take the player characters prisoner as soon as the fight goes against the players.

You kind of lost me with "system say". Would that not be Player and DM say? If all the players and the DM all read the rule that says "no player character can ever die in this game", and everyone agrees to play that game with that rule....then it's both players and DMs agreeing....

I appreciate your input and desire to engage with the ideas being presented by @Manbearcat and @The Shadow. It's difficult to conceive of the kinds of techniques and playstyles they're describing unless you've experienced them first hand.

I similarly struggled for a long period of time until I tried some of them out for myself, and came to better understand what they meant.

I say this because your comments I quoted could have been lifted from my own posts on this board circa 2010-2015, where I was arguing from a place where I couldn't even conceive of the position the "other side" of the conversation was taking.

Manbearcat's car metaphor is apt. In the past it was like I was trying to argue with them about all the reasons a Ford F150 Superduty had all the right features and benefits to take them on their journey, and them turning around and saying, "Sure, but we're traveling by waterway."

And I'm saying all this not to be patronizing (I hope it isn't taken that way), just saying it from a perspective of recognition. The way they're going to talk about certain things is going to feel frustrating. They're going to say things and talk about things and describe things that will simply make no sense from within a certain conception of how RPG play works.

So when they make comments that on surface may seem . . . irritating, or obtuse, or untenable, understand that they're just trying to elucidate an alternative perspective that requires some grounding from within it to fully grasp.

 

[The Shadow]

You need to settle down.

Sorry, what? I'm not angry at all. But if I were, this would be an extremely unhelpful and unconstructive remark.

I know "railroad" is a trigger word, but just keep it in context.

It has nothing to do with any kind of triggering. I'm telling you, and others are telling you, that your assessment is objectively false.

So I'm talking about where the DM or the Players or the DM and Players together all agree that there will be no character death in the game. In such a game, the DM can freely railroad as everyone agreed on it. So this is where the DM can alter the game reality to make sure character death never happens. The DM rolls a '20', nope DM says 'it;s a 2'. The 20th level lich arch wizard....attacks with the spell chill touch and not death blast. the vicious monsters "suddley" take the player characters prisoner as soon as the fight goes against the players.

Nothing even slightly resembling that happens in any game I've ever been in since grade school. You keep asserting this, and we keep telling you it isn't so. Not because it's insulting, but because it isn't so.

You know what is starting to be a bit insulting? You implicitly accusing people of either lying or being deeply mistaken about their own games, which you know nothing about!

Lots of gamers do it. It's not unheard of.

Once again, you miss the point. I'm telling you as a simple fact what happens at my table, and you think I'm taking it as an accusation.

Fudging the dice makes no sense in Fate! We want the variations and twists they provide.

I'm not sure where you see me doing what you say?

In every single post you make on this topic.

I think what your missing is that I post something. You read it and post all sorts of the above. Well, if you were of the mind set that "I play my game" and "you play your game" I'd ask why you are even posting?

How nice of you to tell me what I'm missing. Here's what you're missing: Everything you're saying about story games is wrong. You're assuming we're playing a D&D dungeon crawl badly, when we aren't even trying to do that at all.

I'm posting in the hope that you will eventually say something actually constructive to the conversation; or failing that, to head off other people from the same mistakes.