An Interesting Comparison Between Approaches
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
I think the key, like in O77's example, is that players make stuff up that doesn't conflict with the GM's notions.
Take all the liberties I just took on Merric's cave with 4 PCs. If Merric had limits on what we could play, or our backgrounds, or power levels, he'd be freaking out.
If nothing I made up conflicted with what he's got set in stone (a city, a cave, a fire), then he doesn't really care.
In my case, I made myself a Wizard in "our" world. But then I also stated that I didn't know to what extent my powers would work in "this" world. So basically, I self-throttled my expectations, before the GM had to, and potentially causing an argument of expectation.
I'm definitely one of those players who likes some editorial control. But I try to fit my ideas into being compatible with what the GM has presented for the world.
I imagine if I made a mistake with my ideas in O77's game, he could have a problem with that, but the fault I think, is really mine. The GM is final arbiter of what happens in the game. There's a minimal set of stuff I'm allowed to make up, anything else is at the GM's discretion.
Take all the liberties I just took on Merric's cave with 4 PCs. If Merric had limits on what we could play, or our backgrounds, or power levels, he'd be freaking out.
If nothing I made up conflicted with what he's got set in stone (a city, a cave, a fire), then he doesn't really care.
In my case, I made myself a Wizard in "our" world. But then I also stated that I didn't know to what extent my powers would work in "this" world. So basically, I self-throttled my expectations, before the GM had to, and potentially causing an argument of expectation.
I'm definitely one of those players who likes some editorial control. But I try to fit my ideas into being compatible with what the GM has presented for the world.
I imagine if I made a mistake with my ideas in O77's game, he could have a problem with that, but the fault I think, is really mine. The GM is final arbiter of what happens in the game. There's a minimal set of stuff I'm allowed to make up, anything else is at the GM's discretion.
Hussar
Legend
I don't think this is related to system particularly, although, I imagine that those who prefer one or the other might gravitate towards systems that better facilitate that preference. But, like you, I think it's entirely possible to have both types of players sitting at the same table at the same time, playing the same game.
And, yes, there can be all sorts of challenges that can arise out of that. There's a danger in one player being seen as back seat DMing, for one. I've been accused of that. I'm used to giving a fair degree of latitude to the players as a DM, and when I sit down at someone else's table, sometimes I forget myself.
It can also lead to players thinking that the DM is playing favorites as well. If one player is making editorial changes and the DM is letting it slide, the other players might get a bit upset, instead of realizing that they too can make those changes. After all, they might want editorial control, to the point where anyone at the table exercising it (besides the DM obviously) pulls them out of the game.
I really, really think this is one of those areas where groups should sit down and lay out some ground rules before starting a campaign. How much editorial control is wanted/allowed? What is everyone comfortable with? That sort of thing.
anest1s
First Post
Well I think what is allowed is easily noticed in every case...for example, in the cave game if I asked for everything the story would move just too slow 
this means that putting conditions (if this happens I do this, if not I do the other) and not asking for the details will speed the game.
I think, that even if the group or the DM wont accept minor details made up from the players, the players will still have these details in their head. If I describe a city, with wooden buildings, and after some time without playing we play again, there will be someone thinking that the buildings are made of stone, just because my description sucked. Or wasn't very impressing.
Which means, its better to use what the players think, than having them keep it to themselves and cause misunderstandings later. (Like, "How could we possibly expect the house to get on fire so easily...!?")
this means that putting conditions (if this happens I do this, if not I do the other) and not asking for the details will speed the game.I think, that even if the group or the DM wont accept minor details made up from the players, the players will still have these details in their head. If I describe a city, with wooden buildings, and after some time without playing we play again, there will be someone thinking that the buildings are made of stone, just because my description sucked. Or wasn't very impressing.
Which means, its better to use what the players think, than having them keep it to themselves and cause misunderstandings later. (Like, "How could we possibly expect the house to get on fire so easily...!?")
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I define the two approaches as pattern finding and story telling.
In the first, the Ref is relaying a pattern behind a screen. It is a reality puzzle game with a cooperative simulation game behind a screen treated as a code. Irrelevant answers are responded to with a "yes", but cannot than be contradicted. This contradiction can even be put to the players, if they choose not to see a contradiction. Ref: "You said your dance engaged your legs, feet, arms and torso. Are you doing something different now?" Player: "Yeah, I want to be able to shoot my bow, so I'm just kickin' out the steps now".
The second example is pure storytelling, not code breaking. There are no consequences except as each player chooses to see stuff as consequential. They are each telling a story with the pragmatic understanding each has something to do with the other. There is no authority to do so, but what each player chooses authority to mean.
I use the Tic-Tac-Toe example to explain this a little more clearly. The first opinion, a critical realist pragmatic perspective, is playing Tic-Tac-Toe and trying to find a way to achieve the objective of three X's or three O's in a row. The second opinion, a naive realist perspective, is seeing the underlying pattern in the game. Unless one makes an error, they should be able to win, if not tie every game they play. The third opinion is a postmodern irrealist. There is no ability to recognize patterns as patterns in the brain do not exist, so each person is simply expressing their selves with X's or O's. At a certain point, they may decide whose story is "better" and that person "wins". So all games and contests are popularity contests, not reaching a predetermined goal (the last is unknowable).
D&D started as a hidden simulation game behind a screen. It's sort of like the game Mastermind where one person relays the four pegs behind the screen. In the modernist sense, objectively relaying color and spatial positioning is not wavering from the pattern within the scope defined. The predetermination of that code is subjective, however. In the postmodernist sense, objective reality is an illusion and should be engaged with ironically or inauthentically. From this point of view the person behind the screen is an oppressor and limiter of others' freedom to express their story. To be a DM is to be a tyrant.
Currently, the postmodern opinion is being treated as an absolutism. Though philosophers like Rorty have said there really is no difference between the two except as yet another perspective, it often falls into atheistic fantasies towards truth rather than agnostic. I think of it like a glass half full versus a glass half empty choice.
As in the OP's examples, if one plays a role playing game as a simulated reality behind a screen, they are treating it like almost all people treat our own reality - in a pattern finding manner. This is like almost everyone treats computer output including computer game, except RPGs are larger in scope as non-programmed actions are programmed with each player's attempts, which are irrelevant to the hidden code. As a game of semantics, D&D isn't solving world problems, but it does push people in pragmatically beneficial behaviors. And as a language game it has the side effect of increasing participants' vocabularies.
Story games are from the "narrativist" point of view. There is a strong, absolutist belief running under the current game design theories of all games as stories, but it is not held by all. The "gamist" or ludological point of view is probably best found in those using math's game theory for game design, mathematics being the language of patterns. As story telling endeavors with devout attempts by players for apatternicity towards any underlying patterns in games like Tic-Tac-Toe, Chess, and Go, these games are likely the most unsatisfactory game designs. Telling stories on a grid-board with carved pieces or stones falls into what is often called austerity story telling. I can only imagine such play is abysmal for them. For those who are capable of recognizing not the whole, but the part of the underlying patterns in those games, they can be life long endeavors to increase mastery.
In the first, the Ref is relaying a pattern behind a screen. It is a reality puzzle game with a cooperative simulation game behind a screen treated as a code. Irrelevant answers are responded to with a "yes", but cannot than be contradicted. This contradiction can even be put to the players, if they choose not to see a contradiction. Ref: "You said your dance engaged your legs, feet, arms and torso. Are you doing something different now?" Player: "Yeah, I want to be able to shoot my bow, so I'm just kickin' out the steps now".
The second example is pure storytelling, not code breaking. There are no consequences except as each player chooses to see stuff as consequential. They are each telling a story with the pragmatic understanding each has something to do with the other. There is no authority to do so, but what each player chooses authority to mean.
I use the Tic-Tac-Toe example to explain this a little more clearly. The first opinion, a critical realist pragmatic perspective, is playing Tic-Tac-Toe and trying to find a way to achieve the objective of three X's or three O's in a row. The second opinion, a naive realist perspective, is seeing the underlying pattern in the game. Unless one makes an error, they should be able to win, if not tie every game they play. The third opinion is a postmodern irrealist. There is no ability to recognize patterns as patterns in the brain do not exist, so each person is simply expressing their selves with X's or O's. At a certain point, they may decide whose story is "better" and that person "wins". So all games and contests are popularity contests, not reaching a predetermined goal (the last is unknowable).
D&D started as a hidden simulation game behind a screen. It's sort of like the game Mastermind where one person relays the four pegs behind the screen. In the modernist sense, objectively relaying color and spatial positioning is not wavering from the pattern within the scope defined. The predetermination of that code is subjective, however. In the postmodernist sense, objective reality is an illusion and should be engaged with ironically or inauthentically. From this point of view the person behind the screen is an oppressor and limiter of others' freedom to express their story. To be a DM is to be a tyrant.
Currently, the postmodern opinion is being treated as an absolutism. Though philosophers like Rorty have said there really is no difference between the two except as yet another perspective, it often falls into atheistic fantasies towards truth rather than agnostic. I think of it like a glass half full versus a glass half empty choice.
As in the OP's examples, if one plays a role playing game as a simulated reality behind a screen, they are treating it like almost all people treat our own reality - in a pattern finding manner. This is like almost everyone treats computer output including computer game, except RPGs are larger in scope as non-programmed actions are programmed with each player's attempts, which are irrelevant to the hidden code. As a game of semantics, D&D isn't solving world problems, but it does push people in pragmatically beneficial behaviors. And as a language game it has the side effect of increasing participants' vocabularies.
Story games are from the "narrativist" point of view. There is a strong, absolutist belief running under the current game design theories of all games as stories, but it is not held by all. The "gamist" or ludological point of view is probably best found in those using math's game theory for game design, mathematics being the language of patterns. As story telling endeavors with devout attempts by players for apatternicity towards any underlying patterns in games like Tic-Tac-Toe, Chess, and Go, these games are likely the most unsatisfactory game designs. Telling stories on a grid-board with carved pieces or stones falls into what is often called austerity story telling. I can only imagine such play is abysmal for them. For those who are capable of recognizing not the whole, but the part of the underlying patterns in those games, they can be life long endeavors to increase mastery.
In a pattern finding game details are learned through attempts taken each turn as in Mastermind. In storytelling games the details are accepted or disallowed as each person chooses. If everyone at the table doesn't understand what type of game they are playing, then... Maybe the DM get upset. Or maybe the players don't realize they need to be the initiators. That goes for increasing the explored details as well as driving the action.
IronWolf
blank
I am fine with players have some editorial control. I think my willingness for this increased after DM'ing some PbP games where that method can work really well. I've had some awesome posts by players in my games because they know they have some liberty with the world around them. So for me it has worked really well.
And I have learned a ton of things from my pen and paper DM that I think can improve my DM'ing style - most of which have taken me from being what I now consider an over controlling DM style to one that encourages the player's to be creative and be heroic. If the player's are having fun, I am having fun in most cases.
Now with that said, I trust my players - both pen and paper ones and PbP ones to not abuse this. It hasn't been an issue so far and I think folks have fun playing in my games.
And I have learned a ton of things from my pen and paper DM that I think can improve my DM'ing style - most of which have taken me from being what I now consider an over controlling DM style to one that encourages the player's to be creative and be heroic. If the player's are having fun, I am having fun in most cases.
Now with that said, I trust my players - both pen and paper ones and PbP ones to not abuse this. It hasn't been an issue so far and I think folks have fun playing in my games.
Hussar
Legend
Y'know Ironwolf, I have found much the same thing. Once the players get over the initial freak out that the DM actually is letting them start changing the scene or adding stuff from time to time, it almost becomes a competition between the players. How interesting can everyone make the game without going too far.
Everyone knows that they could break the game, but, an honor system for not doing that seems to work the best.
Everyone knows that they could break the game, but, an honor system for not doing that seems to work the best.
this might be a question for Merric, but I'm pondering this, on a PbP...
Does it help, when declaring what you're doing, as to what your intent is?
That way the GM has a better sense of the context of your action, which might entice him to allow it (thus changing his environment).
Does it help to declare you action in the "I try to..." rather than "I do X"
That way if the GM thinks it isn't possible, he can word it in a way that doesn't retcon your statement.
In my game, I declared I was going north, but I took the time to explain what I was looking to find there, based on my supposition that as a parallel reality, it may be there. I still couldn't go north, because of a fire, but Merric had the opportunity to consider if what I was thinking would fit as an adjustment to his reality.
If I just said, I go north. He has no clue what I'm thinking, and no reason to change what he had written. Basically if we don't share our idea of what might be next, the GM will never consider it.
That may put our ideas at risk of being shot down by a thwartist DM, but that's a different problem...
Does it help, when declaring what you're doing, as to what your intent is?
That way the GM has a better sense of the context of your action, which might entice him to allow it (thus changing his environment).
Does it help to declare you action in the "I try to..." rather than "I do X"
That way if the GM thinks it isn't possible, he can word it in a way that doesn't retcon your statement.
In my game, I declared I was going north, but I took the time to explain what I was looking to find there, based on my supposition that as a parallel reality, it may be there. I still couldn't go north, because of a fire, but Merric had the opportunity to consider if what I was thinking would fit as an adjustment to his reality.
If I just said, I go north. He has no clue what I'm thinking, and no reason to change what he had written. Basically if we don't share our idea of what might be next, the GM will never consider it.
That may put our ideas at risk of being shot down by a thwartist DM, but that's a different problem...
