4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[eyebeams]

Immersionist play, the PC is the protagonist of the situation. "Story" isn't a very helpful term here when discussing Gamist-Immersionist play. Fine for Narrativism's 'Story Now' agenda, but in G-Immersionist play, stories are what arise in retrospect, as the result of play. Bad GMs and modules try to force a particular story - Railroading.

D&D is all about railroading. In classic D&D the plot is a flowchart that is literally set in stone -- and I'm not misusing "literally." I mean that the flowchart is an underground stony maze called a dungeon. You really don't get much more arbitrarily restrictive than that.

Other games are not necessarily better or worse. When we get outside the literal or metaphorical set-in-stone approach you typically have scenes plug into the characters' wide environment and relationships. This is why what (in the Realms, say), what the Zhentarim or Harpers are up to is important to the characters. It provides a set of inspirations for the players (including the DM, who is really a player) when it comes to approaching, abandoning or rebuilding the situation.

Basically, in D&D you have the chance, and the capabilities, to be The Hero, but you have to Step On Up. That's what I love about D&D. As a player I'm not thinking "What would this character Rolfus Redbeard do in this situation?" I'm thinking "What do I, Rolfus Redbeard, do in this situation?" - with an awareness that success or failure are both possible, as a result of both luck and my own abilities.

Do not confuse the way you like to play D&D with the totality of what D&D is about. If I'm in a game set in Newhon or in a Vance's Dying Earth, then the themes of the game really do include things that protagonist can't do anything about, and the point is often to create interesting scenes against this foil.

 

[pawsplay]

Skeptic, thanks for starting an interesting thread.

Because it can suggest that the player is a slave to the PC, rather than vice versa.

Well, I prefer it. My preferred style is immersion. GNS is so meta, and that's not where I want to be when I game. Even as a GM, I want to be experiencing more than directing. I think ideally the player is slave to the PC... what's the possible harm in that, considering the PC is a creation of the player? You should be happy to inhabit a persona of your own creation, and if you've done your job, your fellow players will like your character, too. It's at least as likely to be successful as slaving yourself to an (unwritten) story or trying to win a (arbitrary) challenge or trying to simulate a (incoherent, implied) setting.

Now, GNS does not require you to step outside the experience. But it does not require you to step inside it, either. I want a gaming theory that says, "Get into it." GNS does not do that, and hence is pretty anemic as a theory. GNS is a gains/cost theory, but I'm more interested in flow and peak experience.

 

[eyebeams]

Well, I prefer it. My preferred style is immersion. GNS is so meta, and that's not where I want to be when I game. Even as a GM, I want to be experiencing more than directing. I think ideally the player is slave to the PC... what's the possible harm in that, considering the PC is a creation of the player? You should be happy to inhabit a persona of your own creation, and if you've done your job, your fellow players will like your character, too. It's at least as likely to be successful as slaving yourself to an (unwritten) story or trying to win a (arbitrary) challenge or trying to simulate a (incoherent, implied) setting.

Now, GNS does not require you to step outside the experience. But it does not require you to step inside it, either. I want a gaming theory that says, "Get into it." GNS does not do that, and hence is pretty anemic as a theory. GNS is a gains/cost theory, but I'm more interested in flow and peak experience.

I'm not sure that's a fair critique. I think the Big Model (and GNS before it) is pretty much about making games create peak experiences - but just because it's *about* that doesn't mean it *does* it reliably.

There's also a problem with designing games to create "peak experiences" -- the whole Awesome thing. In practice, if often ends up being the equivalent of editing back all the "boring" parts of a film or book that develop why the swords, spells or whatever should matter.

My experience has been that the result of focusing an agenda and trying to constantly hit the high points is a less-than-engaging game. For instance, I was at a convention where one guy was running a bunch of theory-informed games, and it was pretty much the only table where people would have the time to regularly talk out of game for 10 minutes or so at a stretch. That didn't happen at any of the 3.5 tables. Sometimes people were frustrated, but often, they were simply absorbed in their point of interest in the game. I think people need to understand that sometimes that frustration *is* a sign of absorption.

 

[buzz]

That might just be a reference to how the rules always use "you" when they mean "your character", eg "you swing your axe in a wide arc [...] hit: 3[w] + Str damage"

Oh, it absolutely is. But it, along with other passages, reinforce the whole identification issue skeptic is talking about.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not sure that's a fair critique. I think the Big Model (and GNS before it) is pretty much about making games create peak experiences - but just because it's *about* that doesn't mean it *does* it reliably.

There's also a problem with designing games to create "peak experiences" -- the whole Awesome thing. In practice, if often ends up being the equivalent of editing back all the "boring" parts of a film or book that develop why the swords, spells or whatever should matter.

My experience has been that the result of focusing an agenda and trying to constantly hit the high points is a less-than-engaging game. For instance, I was at a convention where one guy was running a bunch of theory-informed games, and it was pretty much the only table where people would have the time to regularly talk out of game for 10 minutes or so at a stretch. That didn't happen at any of the 3.5 tables. Sometimes people were frustrated, but often, they were simply absorbed in their point of interest in the game. I think people need to understand that sometimes that frustration *is* a sign of absorption.

In a truly peak experience, there are no "boring parts" to edit out. Awesomeness is not what I'm talking about, and in fact, I have a limited appetite for it. I'm talking about eliminating the agenda.

 

[pawsplay]

D&D is all about railroading. In classic D&D the plot is a flowchart that is literally set in stone -- and I'm not misusing "literally." I mean that the flowchart is an underground stony maze called a dungeon. You really don't get much more arbitrarily restrictive than that.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. It's about a big stone dungeon that delimits the scope of the game. Inside the maze, you can do anything. It is precisely the freedom players are granted that made the dungeon design so appealing. Classic D&D is free of such shackles as "dramatic appropriateness," "loyalty to the genre" and so forth. Arbitrary restrictions are simply not present; the game presents physical restrictions, even in such strange things as wizards being unable to wear armor (not untrained in it, or unwilling, but unable). It is the new breed of RPG that is full of "arbitrary restrictions", although they are not arbitrary to the author.

 

[eyebeams]

In a truly peak experience, there are no "boring parts" to edit out. Awesomeness is not what I'm talking about, and in fact, I have a limited appetite for it. I'm talking about eliminating the agenda.

What do you mean by "agenda?"

 

[pawsplay]

What do you mean by "agenda?"

This:

My experience has been that the result of focusing an agenda and trying to constantly hit the high points is a less-than-engaging game.

 

[eyebeams]

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. It's about a big stone dungeon that delimits the scope of the game. Inside the maze, you can do anything. It is precisely the freedom players are granted that made the dungeon design so appealing. Classic D&D is free of such shackles as "dramatic appropriateness," "loyalty to the genre" and so forth. Arbitrary restrictions are simply not present; the game presents physical restrictions, even in such strange things as wizards being unable to wear armor (not untrained in it, or unwilling, but unable). It is the new breed of RPG that is full of "arbitrary restrictions", although they are not arbitrary to the author.

This is really rephrasing my point as a feature, not a bug. There's nothing wrong with this, but you can't very well complain about "railroading" and support this, except to say that you like one version of railroading and don't like the others. This is valid for you, but it's not a broadly applicable critique.

D&D is chock full of elements that enforce a certain feel, from caster restrictions to more subtle elements like the ways some spells and powers plug into the assumed elements of the setting. A "physical" restriction is no different from personality mechanics or unkillable NPCs. They are all systemic restrictions on what players can do. Since there is in fact no real physical space in RPGs, the fact that something is described as being because of a stone wall or your current SAN is immaterial. They both restrict actions. The narrative significance of these may give these different values *for you* but this is only a matter of personal preference.

The fact that the game's been around for a long time means that its "genre" is now self-referential, but this is not that different from Vampire or Shadowrun, which have both existed long enough that they're about what Vampire and Shadowrun should feel like, and not their inspirations per se.

Now if you're talking about railroading as something that should be possible even after all of this, but is still barred by the GM (or the play group in GMless games), then you're talking about something outside of the scope of the system. No version of D&D can keep the DM from imposing this sort of thing. It can formalize expectations about what will and won't be allowed, but these are fairly meaningless.

 

[eyebeams]

This:

well, if you're using my meaning, we're not talking about a capitalized "creative agenda" as much as approaching play from a particular point of view (after we accept the basic idea that we're fighting zombies, or in a dungeon, or whatever.) You can't really eliminate this, because this is outside of the designer's power. You can provide minimal to no support for some ways of doing things, which generally fails to serve at least some of your players. If you mean "Not designing to privilege a way of approaching the game," this is probably impossible too, though it needn't be too extreme. What you can do is design and run games that are open to many approaches, even if some receive more encouragement than others, instead of deliberately refusing support.