D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

do you accept that there are indeed groups who embark on RPG play with in mind that GM controls world while players control characters?

Yes. I also think that many of those RPGers have not really grappled with the tension that arises - which I noted in my post - because X's veridical belief that Y entails that Y, even if Y is not an element, aspect, cause etc of X. Eg if Nero has a veridical belief that the slave traders user human ears for barter, then it follows that the slave traders use human ears for barter. Even though Nero is not an element, aspect or cause of this fact.

And this is not a trivial observation, nor a pedantic one. It underlies a number of recurring issues that arise in the play of RPGs. For instance,

*It explains why players have to ask the GM so many questions, in order to form veridical beliefs about their PC's surroundings which their PCs would form simply by looking around and listening;

*It explains why so much RPGing involves the players being strangers in a strange place, because that sort of set-up establishes at least a degree of congruence between the players' ignorance and the PCs' ignorance;

*It explains why Knowledge-type checks are a routine departure from the general principle adopted by simulationist-oriented RPGers that the causal direction at the table and the causal direction in the fiction must coincide;

It creates the possibility of "power struggles" between the players and the GM: for instance, the GM narrates the PC as failing to dodge and thus being hit in combat, but the player insists that *they are the one who controls their PC, and thus the GM can't narrate that they fail to dodge;

*Or another sort of power struggle: the player insists that their PC believes X, because PC beliefs are the province of the player; the GM insists that, nevertheless, X is false in the fiction, and thus the PC is wrong or deluded; the player refuses to play their PC as deluded, asserting that the PC's state of mind is their prerogative; etc. You might recognise this as one version of the "Smelly Chamberlain".​

If I was joining a RPG group, and the GM (or other group leader) explained that "the GM controls the world while the players control their PCs", as if that was self-evident and required no elaboration, I would be hesitant to join the group unless it was a pretty casual game, that I could play in pawn stance while maybe giving my PC a cool or funny name.

 

[AlViking]

Yes. I also think that many of those RPGers have not really grappled with the tension that arises - which I noted in my post - because X's veridical belief that Y entails that Y, even if Y is not an element, aspect, cause etc of X. Eg if Nero has a veridical belief that the slave traders user human ears for barter, then it follows that the slave traders use human ears for barter. Even though Nero is not an element, aspect or cause of this fact.

And this is not a trivial observation, nor a pedantic one. It underlies a number of recurring issues that arise in the play of RPGs. For instance,

*It explains why players have to ask the GM so many questions, in order to form veridical beliefs about their PC's surroundings which their PCs would form simply by looking around and listening;​

​

*It explains why so much RPGing involves the players being strangers in a strange place, because that sort of set-up establishes at least a degree of congruence between the players' ignorance and the PCs' ignorance;​

​

*It explains why Knowledge-type checks are a routine departure from the general principle adopted by simulationist-oriented RPGers that the causal direction at the table and the causal direction in the fiction must coincide;​

​

It creates the possibility of "power struggles" between the players and the GM: for instance, the GM narrates the PC as failing to dodge and thus being hit in combat, but the player insists that *they are the one who controls their PC, and thus the GM can't narrate that they fail to dodge;​

​

*Or another sort of power struggle: the player insists that their PC believes X, because PC beliefs are the province of the player; the GM insists that, nevertheless, X is false in the fiction, and thus the PC is wrong or deluded; the player refuses to play their PC as deluded, asserting that the PC's state of mind is their prerogative; etc. You might recognise this as one version of the "Smelly Chamberlain".​

If I was joining a RPG group, and the GM (or other group leader) explained that "the GM controls the world while the players control their PCs", as if that was self-evident and required no elaboration, I would be hesitant to join the group unless it was a pretty casual game, that I could play in pawn stance while maybe giving my PC a cool or funny name.

I really wish you would stop with straw-manning what it means for the GM to control the world. In some games I know I'm joining a linear campaign, many people run sandboxes and in either your character is far more than a pawn.

 

[Lanefan]

​

*Or another sort of power struggle: the player insists that their PC believes X, because PC beliefs are the province of the player; the GM insists that, nevertheless, X is false in the fiction, and thus the PC is wrong or deluded; the player refuses to play their PC as deluded, asserting that the PC's state of mind is their prerogative; etc. You might recognise this as one version of the "Smelly Chamberlain".​

Hey, flat-earthers gonna flat-earth.

A PC can believe whatever its player likes; but if that belief's not accurate then so be it, despite anyone's protestations to the contrary.

 

[pemerton]

There is a massive difference. If I call to confirm a reservation and they make up a different time, for example.

I wasn't talking about restaurant or hotel or theatre reservations. I was talking about establishing fiction in a RPG.

Forgetting to include a farrier, and then deciding - in response to a player's question - "Oh, yeah, I meant to include one of them, so yes, there's a farrier in the village" is no different, as far as *the moment of authorship and the metaphysics of the fiction are concerned, from making up a farrier on the spot.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes. I also think that many of those RPGers have not really grappled with the tension that arises - which I noted in my post - because X's veridical belief that Y entails that Y, even if Y is not an element, aspect, cause etc of X. Eg if Nero has a veridical belief that the slave traders user human ears for barter, then it follows that the slave traders use human ears for barter. Even though Nero is not an element, aspect or cause of this fact.

I don't think I understand this post--or rather, I understand all the words and the claims and everything, but I don't understand what you are asserting when you say 'not grappled with the tension'. Are they not aware of it? Are they aware of it but deal with it poorly? Perhaps the problem is that I don't see the 'common issues' you suggest as common at all. While 'the GM controls the world and the players control the PCs' is the foundation for the majority of the games I play.

 

[pemerton]

We've talked a lot about simulationism. But really I think it grates on me the most from the gamist perspective. If I as a player can introduce new things into the fiction that help my PC win, or if complications that I couldn't have planned for occur to help my PC lose, then it is harder for me to feel like I am playing a game with real stakes.

<snip>

The player saying--"my PC says those guys use human ears". Moderate PC/player distinction. If this is done primarily for flavor it doesn't seem that bad imo, but if done often can get old. If the player introduces lore to help their PC win it becomes a hard no.

But it's hardly a criticism of Burning Wheel, or Apocalypse World, or Marvel Heroic RP, that these are not particularly well-suited for gamist play. It's not as if anyone ever asserted the contrary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. I just expect that there's no game that has it all done before play. The players don't have every detail about their characters and their history worked out before the first session, and the GM hasn't fully detailed the entire world and all its NPCs. It seems that Develop in Play as you call it is always going to be a component of play.

At least as far as a character goes, if you're thorough it can well be a case that nothing you haven't already established ends up being significant in play at all though. I think there was exactly one thing in a particular character I played in my wife's superhero campaign that came up during play (as compared to having already been established in my background material but just not revealed to anyone who hadn't read it) in a way that was anything but so trivial no one probably remembered it ten minutes later.

But then, I come from a background where pretty extensive work on character backgrounds, even for things that likely don't matter, is routine. Probably again comes from playing in so many superhero games where background elements are a constant potential plot source, as compared to wandering-adventurer games where a lot of it, short of motivations, often irrelevant.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is it really all that surprising? The player who creates an elaborate 50-page backstory with everything nailed down is as real as the murderhobo with nothing beyond a name. Extreme outliers they may be, but they're out there.

Like I said, some of it also has to do with what kind of games you're used to. I'd suggest that games where someone has an established life they're going to keep living while doing whatever it is that makes them a PC encourages more of this, because its liable to be relevant more frequently than one where someone's constantly on the move and/or has no connections.

 

[The Firebird]

I wasn't talking about restaurant or hotel or theatre reservations. I was talking about establishing fiction in a RPG.

Forgetting to include a farrier, and then deciding - in response to a player's question - "Oh, yeah, I meant to include one of them, so yes, there's a farrier in the village" is no different, as far as *the moment of authorship and the metaphysics of the fiction are concerned, from making up a farrier on the spot.

But they differ in the method of authorship, which matters. In the confirmation case, the method gives reference to the GMs plans or perhaps to aspects of the world ('a town of this many people should have a farrier'). Making it up doesn't. The implication is instead "oh Bob had a nice idea, sure let's put a farrier here'.

 

[pemerton]

The MC controls the psychic maelstrom. What form it takes, how and where (and if) it moves. How strong it is. How common it is for people to be able to tap into it.

The player controls their PC's personal experience with it. They control their PC's senses, not the maelstrom itself.

As an example, in this game, the maelstrom is like constant radio signals. One player says they always hear static but can sometimes snatch useful bits of coherent sound out of it. Another player says they have to work hard to tune their own mind, but have access to dozens of clear stations when they successfully do so.

Where does the rulebook say that the player has to follow the GM's direction here?

And where does the rulebook say that the GM gets to decide how common it is for people to be able to tap into it? Are you saying that a GM, in Apocalypse World, can veto a player's decision that their PC opens their brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom (which is the trigger for the move: AW rulebook, p 204)?

Here is what John Harper actually means, as best I can tell, when he says that the GM is in charge of the psychic maelstrom; it follows from how the move is defined:

When you open your brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom, roll+weird. On a hit, the MC will tell you something new and interesting about the current situation, and might ask you a
question or two; answer them. On a 10+, the MC will give you good detail. On a 7–9, the MC will give you an impression. If you already know all there is to know, the MC will tell you that.​

The GM controls the content of the psychic maelstrom: that is, what information it conveys. In terms of procedures of play, "opening your brain" is a thing the player can do to try and oblige the GM to give them more information.

Here's some of the elaboration of that (still on p 204):

The player will want to choose a topic, naturally. She’ll say “I open my brain about Tum Tum” or something. It’s fine to give her what she wants, much of the time - after all, you want everybody to be opening their brains, you don’t want to chase them away from it - but not all the time. Sometimes you should tell them about your favorite topic instead, and sometimes you should tell them what they need to know, if only they knew to ask. . . .

At first when you ask questions, they can be simply to establish facts and images, questions like “what’s the psychic maelstrom like (for you)?” and “how do you learn things from it?” As the game progresses, though, ask questions about the characters’ lives, pasts, psyches, souls. “Who was your first kiss? Tell about it.” “Are you happy?” “What’s the worst hurt you’ve suffered that you can’t remember?” “If you could take one conversation back, undo it, what would it be?” “If you were to kill Bran right this minute, how would you do it?” Make time for the players’ answers, and don’t let the players squirm out of them just because they never thought about it. “I know you don’t know who your first kiss was. Make it up!”

Also take full advantage of the characters’ open brains to barf forth apocalyptica. What if there’s somebody in the maelstrom that they know? What if some part of the maelstrom stays inside their brain when they close it again? What if the maelstrom sweeps a certain key memory out of their brain while it’s in there, or gives them a brand new fresh one? As to the good details versus the impressions, look to your fronts to provide them.The “you already know all there is to know” clause is there, but I’ve never used it and I hope you never do too.​