Forked Thread: Why the World Exists [GM-less Gaming]

[jim pinto]

The trouble with the notion that moral dilemmas create dramatic action is that in fact they produce indecisive inaction, which is intrinsically uninteresting. People tend quickly to develop sorting and prioritizing rules to get past boring stasis to the engaging particulars of doing something. Conflict between people with different hierarchies of values is something else altogether.

Interesting.

For me, characters overcome with moral dilemmas is half of roleplaying. If every decision is a simple cut and dry pragmatic assessment of all the components, then you're talking about a puzzle. Not a game (short of the dice not falling in your favor). But isn't that what makes a game like RISK different from a game like CHESS (despite the hundred other variations).

Many new rpgs deal with what is called CONFLICT resolution and not TASK resolution. I think Dogs in the Vineyard is the best example of a game that makes moral arguments vastly entertaining to both play and watch.

ASIDE: Among it's many flaws, D&D 3.x suffers from the combat-crawl of rolling a dice for every single swing of a sword. And this can be part of the uninteresting process. No one wants to watch Bob sit there and wonder if killing more goblins is really answer. "Cripes. Just roll the dice, man." If board games took this approach, Settlers of Catan would have turns dedicated to wagons carrying wood back to your village before you could ever trade it for sheep.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm trying to understand what your response is. You have some interesting experiences. What exactly are you talking about though in reference to what I said?

The point of roleplaying is to explore the role, not manipulate the authors of it into what the player wishes it was. Games about the latter aren't about roleplaying as roleplaying cannot be done within them.

Also, I think you're conflating roleplaying with storytelling to some degree. Not to mention kind of bagging on certain games, from my reading at least, that you do not like. In my view, D&D does an excellent job of teaching a person how to roleplay through roleplaying. I mean, that's what roleplaying is: learning, right?

You may not have liked how those wargamers were roleplaying, but perhaps you believed the game was about something other than what it was? Perhaps you expected a storytelling game or perhaps one about playing a different role?

ASIDE: As to your alignment argument, I'm not a fan of the stiff alignment system. There are times when people will make decisions out of necessity, pragmatism, and/or opportunity… not out of adherence to a rigid and archaic system. If anything, all of the absolutes tend toward neutral anyway, only adhering to their ideology when it's convenient. A truly LG person could not exist during a famine for instance. And if he did, he's probably not human.

Did you read what I wrote? Alignment isn't about adhering to a particular ethic.

 

[Mallus]

I mean, that's what roleplaying is: learning, right?

I prefer a definition more along the lines of 'the assumption of a fictional role within a fictional environment or scenario'. Learning can certainly be a part of that.

Wait, we've been through this before, no?

You may not have liked how those wargamers were roleplaying, but perhaps you believed the game was about something other than what it was?

Perhaps you believe the game is about one narrowly defined thing, and others disagree w/that characterization?

Perhaps you expected a storytelling game or perhaps one about playing a different role?

In the context of role-playing games, 'role' means both 'fictional role' and something akin to 'societal role/profession'. I've noticed you don't like to admit the former is as important as the latter.

 

[howandwhy99]

I prefer a definition more along the lines of 'the assumption of a fictional role within a fictional environment or scenario'. Learning can certainly be a part of that.

Wait, we've been through this before, no?

I didn't know we were having another discussion Mallus. Preference does not denote truth.

Perhaps you believe the game is about one narrowly defined thing, and others disagree w/that characterization?

In the context of role-playing games, 'role' means both 'fictional role' and something akin to 'societal role/profession'. I've noticed you don't like to admit the former is as important as the latter.

I believe roleplaying is what it is, not what some wish it was. Roles are always fictional, what they aren't are a reference to characters in a theatre play. If you have some actual valid proof, perhaps some literature disputing this from a sociology professor, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'll stick with the facts.

 

[Mallus]

I believe roleplaying is what it is, not what some wish it was.

Prescriptivist.

Seriously though, what's wrong with constructing a definition of role-playing based on actually observing what goes on during a gaming session? I seem to recall all your evidence about role-playing comes from outside the hobby, from writing about phenomena that have, at best, a tangential relationship to RPG play.

 

[howandwhy99]

Prescriptivist.

Seriously though, what's wrong with constructing a definition of role-playing based on actually observing what goes on during a gaming session? I seem to recall all your evidence about role-playing comes from outside the hobby, from writing about phenomena that have, at best, a tangential relationship to RPG play.

If you cannot think of a refutation to my argument, please just admit it. Typically, folks who change what they are doing to the point that it no longer falls under one categorization, they own up to it and call what they are doing what it really is. That is the nature of truth telling and being honest with one's self and one's community.

 

[Mallus]

If you cannot think of a refutation to my argument, please just admit it.

I note that you didn't answer my question. What's wrong with creating a definition of role-playing based on the actual observation of play?

Typically, folks who change what they are doing to the point that it no longer falls under one categorization, they own up to it and call what they are doing what it really is.

Well that's the thing... I've never observed anyone role-playing as you describe it. From my experience, yours is the outlier definition.

That is the nature of truth telling and being honest with one's self and one's community.

So I'm being dishonest because I've never seen people role-playing in the manner you describe? (and for that matter, never read about it in any published gaming materials).

 

[howandwhy99]

I note that you didn't answer my question. What's wrong with creating a definition of role-playing based on the actual observation of play?

Because that would be working backwards. You don't define a thing before you discern what it is. You find out what folks and doing and then say, "what's the term for that?"

Well that's the thing... I've never observed anyone role-playing as you describe it. From my experience, yours is the outlier definition.

Seeing as each of us a a conscious human being, I highly doubt that.

So I'm being dishonest because I've never seen people role-playing in the manner you describe? (and for that matter, never read about it in any published gaming materials).

Again, I'm willing to bet you have, but may not be able to discern the difference between roleplaying and improvisational acting.

I'm not trying to lay down the facts here, but more truth in labelling in what passes for roleplaying theory would be a boon to everyone. If you really do have questions about roleplaying, I suggest going to the library to find out more.



@Jim Pinto, if you wish to discuss anything further, I will check back tomorrow.

 

[jim pinto]

@Jim Pinto, if you wish to discuss anything further, I will check back tomorrow.

i will try to get back into the discussion soon

 

[jim pinto]

Reset

Okay.

So, now that everyone's forgotten what this thread is about, let me try a new tact.

One. This is just an idea for how to invest players more in the action of the game.

Two. We all kind of a agreed that players that don't really show up to "play" aren't high on any list of gaming priorities. Right?

Three. I'm not a fan of the GM as "entertainer" idea. If you want to sit back and be entertained passively, pay me for my time. If you want to engage the story and be involved (and maybe impact the game), I'll gladly GM for you for free.



Four. I'm not a big fan of adventures that are about "killing orcs" or stopping a lich… just because he's a lich.

Five. Bashing someone's play style isn't my thing. Expanding concepts and playing different ways in.

There are plenty of tools out there for doing it different, but I think that everytime someone says different, people hear "better." When in fact, playing different for player X is better for him/her. Dogs in the Vineyard is a much more enjoyable game experience for me than anything in the Forgotten Realms.

And a lot of that has to do with the people showing up to play, I now have to admit. Someone playing DOGS is showing up to play something very different.

Let's pretend for a second that every RPG company in the 90s had gone the mass market route with their products instead of the hobbyist, number crunching route that most games took. We'd be looking at a different hobby. Better? Who knows? More accessible to newbies? Most likely. A different play experience than WoW? Most definitely.


A long time ago, WOTC (I think it was WOTC; don't quote me) did a study about gamers, finding that over 60% of their consumer base wanted rules, weapons, feats, and so on. The crunchy bits that turn RPGs into CCGs. Was it any surprise that 4E turned out to be for those consumers? It's apocryphal to compare 4E to WoW, but there it is. So many people see similarities, that it's become trite to even say it now. Some people are loving it and some people are praying that 3.75 makes D&D fun again.

Neither of these products are trying to capture the attention of the player who wants a story or an easier time at the table. Just look at the advice sections of these books if you don't believe me.

I was about to go on a big tangent there, but I think I have the quintessential question here.

Which came first? Bad advice sections or players tuning out advice sections altogether? When did every RPG read the same tired advice for GMs as moderator and storytellers and ringleaders… blah blah blah…? When did people just stop reading the last 50 pages of an RPG?