GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is kind of flattening a range of different play. It's not hard to characterize playing, say, White Plume Mountain with reading from notes. Sure, the party sometimes has a few choices. They're all of a "go left or right" kind of nature. The storyline is not fixed, but it will consist of specific elements, the goal is set before play begins, and doesn't relate to the characters at all, etc. Sure, there may be outcomes of some situations that nobody planned, but the situations are either authored or the elements of them are. I think it is fair to characterize that as @pemerton does.

I was taking more issue with the confusion of the analogy

Maybe he's a little militant in his stance, but don't you think that the people who are on the other side of the argument are being just a tad bit extreme?

But if you are militant in how you talk about these things, people are going to react with militancy. And you can think you are right, but if you are dismissive of other peoples ideas about games, they will get angry and defend their techniques, their style, etc, perhaps even with a degree of hostility

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, I think there's a difference between a constraint and a commitment. I think you can commit to your prep, as like a self-discipline thing, but you are never really constrained by it because you are not accountable for it. At the end of the day the GM Judgements you make in a game like Blades are different because the players know what a judgement is and what it is not. Everything is player facing and the GM is accountable to the players for every decision. For right or wrong more traditional designs are black boxes, even a fair share of the rules are hidden behind a curtain. This is a difference, it's not a problem, but it's an important difference.

It is a real difference. But I don't accept that self-imposed constraints are not constants. They are.

Transparency will makes things different but I don't think "make GM accountable" really is an important difference. It matters only if you don't trust GM to run the game in principled way otherwise, and I would not want to play with such a GM in the first place.

 

[thefutilist]

Survival, success of character goals etc. I get what you're saying, and I too think narrativism probably works better if you are not trying to "win" and instead just want to see what happens. But I think it is pretty common for people to internalise the character's goals, and thus achieving them is "winning." Like in Blades in the Dark it seems pretty obvious that there are "win conditions," and there is even score we keep with stash, crew tier etc. I have tried to care less about that, and just go with the flow instead of "playing optimally" and I think the game is more fun that way, but it also is mentally rather difficult thing to do.

I know you like it but I think Blades is a truly terrible game so I can't refer to it for purpose of illustration.

We do have some common ground on the issue that we've discussed before, so I'll break down my thought process.

Yeah I think internalizing character goals as your own is a very common occurrence but I think it's 'potentially' fatal to Narrativism. For the reasons we discussed in the social mechanics thread where both us were surprised that people couldn't resolve character interaction by fiat.

If the character goals becomes your goal then you're no longer responsive to how the fiction (what the other player is saying) effects your character and their goal. In the 'fatal' case it means your vying with other players over a story outcome and the 'game' is basically cops and robbers with dice to resolve disagreements. The actual participants are in conflict, not just their characters.

On the other hand, in play, it feels like I am strongly identified with my characters goals but there are certain break lines where it's time to stop. As soon as it's the other players turn to speak for instance. Which is when me as my character is taking in information that may change how they feel. Or it's just the other players turn to describe an outcome.

 

[Campbell]

@Bedrockgames

I won't speak for @pemerton but he posts about play in a very technical way. Including his own breakdowns of running Traveller, D&D 4e, Cortex and others. I don't think he's blind to the artistry of play, just that focuses on those nuances makes it much harder to analyze and compare play.

I think you and many others who either only play trad games or only play them as diversions from their main play, have this tendency to talk about trad play in romantic terms and to present your play not as a way to play roleplaying games, just one possible arrangement, but as either the way or the platonic way. The natural way.

In doing so, I think mostly without meaning to do so you lay claim to things that do not fully belong to your particular arrangement of play. And treat other play as lesser, not by casting aspersions on the quality of play, but on treating as less real, less organic. You act as if immersion is a thing you own. Same for coherency, how real things feel.

I don't think this is intentional, at least not usually. But I think there's often a tendency to double down when you get called on it, to use the language that implies your play is the platonic ideal even more.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think the two are entirely at odds. Let's say in 1000 Arrows, my character could be played in some kind of turtley defensive way, doing nothing that risks defeat and basically just accumulating XP by doing minor stuff, or moves like equipment upgrades, etc. Honestly our GM would almost ensure, given the particulars of that game, that stuff would come down on me. Still, what I choose is to actually RP the character and play it to the hilt, as the game intends. Nevertheless my character takes actions that she perceives to be in her interests. Narrativist play only works if the players take on the part, including the goals, of the characters. THEN you may look at each other across the table and decide that that 6- should play out as "things are bad". It is nothing like some kind of group story telling exercise, its true Role Play, and there's a definite game aspect (1KA honestly is about the least gamist PbtA I've played, but it still has a game aspect).

Sure, they are not always at odds. Now playing "optimally" might lead to boring gameplay, and that is one thing, but it goes beyond that. I think the sort of "the character tries to win, so the player tries to win" you describe works better in a game where the rules are simulationistic in a way that the character and player risk analysis and choices can be roughly analogous. In my experience more narrative games often have things that break such symmetry.

 

[thefutilist]

So, I think there's a difference between a constraint and a commitment. I think you can commit to your prep, as like a self-discipline thing, but you are never really constrained by it because you are not accountable for it.

How does the GM play a character then? The GM has to prep a character and give them priorities. It's in the same way that a player is accountable to their character. When I'm playing a character I can't just have them do anything, my understanding of the fictional positioning provides a constraint.

 

[thefutilist]

Really? Hino absolutely wants to see Oda Nobunaga fail, so that the Iga Sokoku Ikki and its people can remain free from tyranny. Also because of personal reasons. What more goal do I need? This is 1000x more 'real' than 99% of trad play ever offers. Hino wants to win, will, perhaps, do anything to win. Let's play to find out! I bet you this is as good as the peak play you can get by your methods, but every game we play is like this. Narrativist play is a crucible, you will be melted, cast, and reforged every time. Well, if not, then it's falling short of its potential.

I address this in my reply to Crimson. there's a difference between the player goal and the character goal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames

I won't speak for @pemerton but he posts about play in a very technical way. Including his own breakdowns of running Traveller, D&D 4e, Cortex and others. I don't think he's blind to the artistry of play, just that focuses on those nuances makes it much harder to analyze and compare play.

I think you and many others who either only play trad games or only play them as diversions from their main play, have this tendency to talk about trad play in romantic terms and to present your play not as a way to play roleplaying games, just one possible arrangement, but as either the way or the platonic way. The natural way.

In doing so, I think mostly without meaning to do so you lay claim to things that do not fully belong to your particular arrangement of play. And treat other play as lesser, not by casting aspersions on the quality of play, but on treating as less real, less organic. You act as if immersion is a thing you own. Same for coherency, how real things feel.

I don't think this is intentional, at least not usually. But I think there's often a tendency to double down when you get called on it, to use the language that implies your play is the platonic ideal even more.

I have been very very clear that I don’t think other types of play are lesser. I have also said I play other types of games. Pemertons way of analysis isn’t the only way to understand how games function, how to design games, etc. Part of the problem is you guys tend to treat your mode of analysis as more accurate about what is actually happening and you tend to dismiss those who disagree as being blinded because they play trad (and also more trad is a term most of us don’t even agree with but have used to communicate in these threads).

 

[Campbell]

How does the GM play a character then? The GM has to prep a character and give them priorities. It's in the same way that a player is accountable to their character. When I'm playing a character I can't just have them do anything, my understanding of the fictional positioning provides a constraint.

I think the commitments we make to ourselves are an important and vital part of play. I just think the commitments that we make to each other are more important. I value constraints and accountability because I approach from the perspective that we should all be trying to help each other do it better. I value that appraisal and feedback process as a core element of play.

 

[Campbell]

I have been very very clear that I don’t think other types of play are lesser. I have also said I play other types of games. Pemertons way of analysis isn’t the only way to understand how games function, how to design games, etc. Part of the problem is you guys tend to treat your mode of analysis as more accurate about what is actually happening and you tend to dismiss those who disagree as being blinded because they play trad (and also more trad is a term most of us don’t even agree with but have used to communicate in these threads).

You don't say it's lesser but you imply it's less real. And for those like me who value that feeling of being there in the moment and the emotional immersion in character and situations that's frankly worse.

I think there are other ways to analyze games, but the alternative analysis still needs to leave space for us to exist. Which it almost never does.