GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

I’m not making any argument. I’m pointing out that you seem to share some of the sentiments that he expresses.

If I found myself on the same side of the conversation… I’d maybe pause and consider that.

Or not… you do you. I was just pointing it out.

Ooh. You breathe and he breathes. Maybe you should pause and consider that.

That there are a couple things my posts have in common with his has no real meaning, so I'd appreciate it if you just respond to my posts and stop trying to link them to other people as if that means something.

Edit: And by the by, that bolded portion is the argument I'm talking about. You're trying to connect people on the same side of things as if we are somehow the same when we are not the same, and that's a wrong thing to do. You should pause and consider that, too.

 

[Maxperson]

None of what I said is about guaranteeing an outcome

You said the following as a response to someone claiming that they have 100% agency in real life.

"Everything in your life is exactly as you wish it to be? You are unconstrained by social pressures, the law, financial considerations? You could choose to end global hunger or global conflict but you don't want to?"

That's you saying guaranteeing the outcome is required in order to have full agency. Guaranteeing life is exactly as they wish it. Guaranteeing that they could end global hunger or conflict, but merely don't wish to.

Maybe you didn't intend to say that, but that's what those words mean.

 

[thefutilist]

Now I don't think your play in which we want to see how the PC reacts when they learn Michelle was murdered is identical to my Prince Valiant play. But I feel it is closer to that, than to solving a traditional CoC mystery or to mapping a dungeon in classic D&D.

Yeah I agree with all you said so I don't have much to add.

But in any event I don't think a great deal of D&D play has the sorts of goals that you are talking about. It is loosely either "gamist" with a fair bit of exploration in the neighbourhood, or exploratory perhaps with intermittent bouts of gamism, especially during combat. The 8 hour duration for the Alarm spell is primarily meant to interact, in some fashion, with a rest economy; not provide colour for what it means to narrate a puissant assassin.

Yeah I really should mention this more. 99% of rpg play is mediocre imo. Most of the texts are terrible and a great deal of play is a confused mish-mash that would be greatly improved if it was more considered. A lot of my arguments are based around talking to people that do have considered play but they are in no way representative.

 

[Maxperson]

With respect I think there's an element of trying to preserve the mystery of the stage magician's techniques in your position here. 'Don't peek behind the curtain'.

Yes the 'play to find out the contents of the GM's notes' description is very reductive. Yes it leaves out a lot of the depth and nuance of actual play. But it's also fundamentally accurate.

If we are to profitably discuss the merits of different playstyles, rulesets, and approaches, then we must first be honest about their fundamental character.

Then maybe we should also be honest and admit that "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes" is a derogatory way to term that playstyle. Then we can rename it into something that won't cause problems when it is used.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thanks. Yes, 'the sanctity of the GM's notes, and whoa are they detailed' is a genuinely useful tool for creating certain kinds of play, and when done well it can be very enjoyable.

I never know what people mean when they say 'narrative games'. It seems almost the opposite of the GM's notes thing, it's so broad and amorphous that it has no meaning. I'm familiar with a bunch of games that might be described as 'narrative', and even wrote and published one, but I don't recognise at all your description of how they play out.

I am sure this isn't accurate, probably for anyone but me, but if the players are in a position to make changes to the game in active play outside of their own PCs actions or knowledge, or the game's rules are largely bent toward producing a specific sort of story experience for the players (by whatever method), or the game itself uses a lot of narrative language in its rules, presentation, and/or design philosophy (obviously "a lot" is subjective), then to me it is a narrative game. I'm sure that there are many games that hit one or more of these points that are quite different from each other.

Now there are games I enjoy that have some element of these things, so I supposed there is a sort of "critical mass" for me personally where it crosses a threshold into being what I think of as a "narrative game" or "storygame", and at that point I cease to enjoy the experience.

 

[Campbell]

I am sure this isn't accurate, probably for anyone but me, but if the players are in a position to make changes to the game in active play outside of their own PCs actions or knowledge, or the game's rules are largely bent toward producing a specific sort of story experience for the players (by whatever method), or the game itself uses a lot of narrative language in its rules, presentation, and/or design philosophy (obviously "a lot" is subjective), then to me it is a narrative game. I'm sure that there are many games that hit one or more of these points that are quite different from each other.

Now there are games I enjoy that have some element of these things, so I supposed there is a sort of "critical mass" for me personally where it crosses a threshold into being what I think of as a "narrative game" or "storygame", and at that point I cease to enjoy the experience.

By casting every game that works differently than the model of play you prefer in a single bucket you risk providing a wildly inaccurate view of other people's play experiences and the individual games in question. It would be much more accurate to simply call them "games I don't enjoy" for all they have in common.

 

[Emerikol]

I never know what people mean when they say 'narrative games'. It seems almost the opposite of the GM's notes thing, it's so broad and amorphous that it has no meaning. I'm familiar with a bunch of games that might be described as 'narrative', and even wrote and published one, but I don't recognise at all your description of how they play out.

It is when players can introduce new information into the game world. Narrativists would say they adhere to the agreed upon fiction boundaries but otherwise it's wide open. So a player could say, "I go into town and find my sister at the tavern where she works" and that would suddenly be a true fact in the world so long as no one had established anything to the contrary prior to that time. Obviously there are degrees in this as well but that is the simple one sentence idea.

 

[Emerikol]

You said the following as a response to someone claiming that they have 100% agency in real life.

"Everything in your life is exactly as you wish it to be? You are unconstrained by social pressures, the law, financial considerations? You could choose to end global hunger or global conflict but you don't want to?"

That's you saying guaranteeing the outcome is required in order to have full agency. Guaranteeing life is exactly as they wish it. Guaranteeing that they could end global hunger or conflict, but merely don't wish to.

Maybe you didn't intend to say that, but that's what those words mean.

That is the problem. That is not what those words mean. Stop using them that way.

None of your examples have anything to do with agency. For example, if I was walking along and fell into a well and couldn't get out, I have lost zero agency. When someone mind controls me so that when I think I'm turning left I am in fact turning right, then that is when I am losing agency. As long as the choices I make are mine and not secretly changed, then I have agency.

Almost everyone has agency in the real world. The question we are debating is agency in a game. If the DM is railroading the group then that is a loss of agency. If the DM is fudging the dice or moving around the rooms to force what he wants then that is a loss of agency. The fact I have used my fireball and can't cast it again is not a loss of agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you never reach the walls, and no one's stopping you from trying, how important is it that they're there?

This is an interesting point. I think sandboxes come in a few different varieties. One I have seen certainly the adventure is expected to arise within the confines of a particular map. But I think another way you see people run it is the whole living and open world approach. Presumably that also has limits, but I do think there are people who play with an idea that, in theory, these limits can be exceeded. This is also highly cosmology dependent

To give an example in my Ogre Gate campaigns there isn't really an outer space, there is earth, heaven and an underworld. And in heaven you will find realms on celestial bodies like the moon, sun and stars: and players can go to these if they have the power or the means. That is very high level play though to get there. So I have had campaigns where players reach The Perfect Realm (the top realm in Heaven). Still the world exists in a multiverse. This is just one reality. And since it is drawing on both wuxia and elements of Xianxia, in Xianxia there is a trope of being able to break from one universe to the next. I don't have that whole universe mapped out. I have one other setting in that universe mapped. If a campaign reached a point where something like this happened, I might still be open to it going there, and them finding some other place beyond the current setting. But at the very least, I would need time to figure out a mechanism for determining where they go, then fleshing out where they go. On the other hand, I may just want to keep things contained in the Ogre Gate universe and not go there (effectively having that moment be the end of a campaign)

So I think both things are true here. Sandboxes do often have boundaries like @Umbran is saying (and those boundaries could be physical like the boundaries between worlds, or even conceptual, like we simply don't do this as a basis for adventures). But there is an open style of playing them that might even invite exceeding boundaries like the confines of a planet or universe. In most cases I think the ideal is a fairly boundless world (but not one where you would expect to leave that world)

 

[bloodtide]

i don’t think that means a whole lot. Two GMs can be big advocates of adventure paths and have entirely different perspectives on it. I have the impression @bloodtide and I come from very different GM styles and gaming philosophies. I can’t speak to his games and he runs them. But in my games players definitely have agency. That is like one of my main priorities.

I would never use the words "player agency", those are your words, not mine. I would say my players have the freedom to do and try anything they want. For example in my game, no player asks me a question like "can my character do that". That can get you thrown out of the game. I want my players to just try it and see what happens. And this works out great! The good players in my game just try things...whatever they think of on a whim. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, but it is all fun.

@Maxperson @Crimson Longinus @Bedrockgames @Micah Sweet

Just pointing out that the above is from someone who’s advocating for a lot of the same things as you guys.

The same...but different.

A big take away is our games might have some similarities, but are each very unique. While the other type of game you favor is always the same every time.

How do they do any of that without being able to ask questions?

As I have mentioned before, in my game we do nearly exclusively in deep immersion in-character role playing(the acting kind).

Like, the GM starts a 1st level AD&D game, telling us that we (the PCs) are in Hommlett, and have heard rumours of the Moathouse. Suppose I decide that my PC wants to pursue the goal of becoming the ruler of the Bone March, how am I going to pursue that? Is the GM allowed to tell me that my player, born in a village near Verbobonc, has never even heard of the Bone March?

Is this not moving the goal posts?

There is a huge difference between the games of "as a player you have agreed to go on this set adventure" and "this is a blank sandbox for you the player to do whatever they want and me, your humble servant DM to just make whatever you want on a whim".

Suppose I tell the GM that I head back to my village because what I really want to do is woo Rosie Cotton and become a prosperous farmer, how am I going to do that? How does that even fit into AD&D play?

Well, the DMG and Castle Guide have some farm related rules, and if your counting 2E as AD&D, and you should, there is much more about farming with rules.....but for the most part the DM would just make up a bunch of rules on the spot.

But in any event I don't think a great deal of D&D play has the sorts of goals that you are talking about.

It does, beyond the rules.

Not in my view. The DM is running the entire world and everything in it except the PCs, so they have to represent the closest thing to objective truth in the setting that we're going to get. I know you have a different view though, do I doubt this will get us anywhere.

Sounds good to me, and I agree.

Though I can see this as a BIG...really, really BIG problem for some people.

"X is on your side, so you all must be in some sort agreement."

I don't agree that we all agree.

This is a good point. Different GMs do this sort of thing differently. Not everyone needs notes.

I might note I am one of those amazing people that remembers vast amounts of detail after very little exposure.

I don't agree with your last sentence. The notes are there to constrain the GM's imagination. They provide the basis for extrapolations, for instance.

I think you forget the big main difference between your game and others:

I might glance at a note, say "nah", and just flick that note right off the table and just do whatever I want. Big Difference.

I would hope that you can recognise that notes is a shorthand for fixed ideas about the content of the fiction from which the GM is not at liberty to depart, and which the GM is committed to using as the basis for extrapolation. Or something along those lines.

Well, my shorthand is more: some stuff I wrote down that I might or might not use.

To flip it around: when I quote the Burning Wheel rulebook which says, among other things, that "The GM is responsible for challenging the players. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players' priorities" (Gold Revised. pp 10-11), do you think that I (or Luke Crane) think that play is not immersive, because that description of how play works is rather dry and technical?

Yes, but not based on you following that rulebook word for word.

1. Portraying Sherlock Holmes in a stage adaptation of Hound of the Baskervilles(or any other specific mystery)
2. Reading a Sherlock Holmes mystery you've never read before, trying to figure out the real perpetrator as you read
3. Writing a Sherlock Holmes "whodunnit" yourself, which you hope someone else might enjoy reading and solving

I think you forgot an important one here:

4.Portraying Sherlock Holmes as a player character in an RPG