RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[howandwhy99]

I stated earlier that I see RPGs as pattern finding games because it is the manner in which they have been played for most of the hobby. For example, the DM says the walls are there, the floor, the ceiling, etc. I tell him I look again, they are still there. I thrust my hand at the wall and it stops. I try again and it stops again. Over and over. "There must be a rule there".

Compare that to more current designs. Tom wants the tunnel to split left and right about 40' ahead. I want it to go forward until it's out of sight, well over 40'. We roll dice, or do whatever, and who ever wins that game we play gets to say what happens in the story.

For my games I run them as situational puzzle games. That means I have a simulation game behind a screen that is designed as a cooperation game. Each of the players is attempting to get as many points as possible as that is the objective of the game, but cooperative strategies, the types of choices they make, work better than competitive ones for accomplishing their individual objective. It's a situational puzzle game because the simulation game rules are unknown to the players, behind a screen, and irrelevant answers receive a "yes" because they are irrelevant. However, they cannot then go back and contradict these Yes answers. "You said you did the watusi this turn, that's what you did." If others ask what that means, I refer them to the player who did it. If further actions require me to know exactly what it means to do the watusi, I ask and apply whatever falls under the rules to the game. Asking for clarification until I understand what this means under the rules (the code being broken) is one of the biggest parts of DMing IMO.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For my games I run them as situational puzzle games. That means I have a simulation game behind a screen that is designed as a cooperation game. Each of the players is attempting to get as many points as possible as that is the objective of the game, but cooperative strategies, the types of choices they make, work better than competitive ones for accomplishing their individual objective.

Oh Daniel-san, you run tournament? Players play for points?

 

[LostSoul]

OK, I'm really confused (which doesn't take much doing) by all this.

First, this new "illusionism" term - new to me, anyway; I'd never heard it before reading this thread - where the bleep did this spring up from?

From the Forge. Here is what they have to say about it:

Illusionism

A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS. Term coined by Paul Elliott.​

Which means we have to look at the definition of "Force".

The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike Holmes).​

If I am using those terms when I consider your examples, I'm left with... not much. You can see how I can't say if it's Illusionism or not, because I don't know what the "thematically-significant" decisions for your group are, nor what your "Social Contract" is.

 

[The Shaman]

So according to Wolf1066, a proper evening's gaming is one where the referee sweats blood (or spends hard-earned money) to prepare (or buy) a perfectly good plot for the players to be involved in.

Personally, if I wanted to spend an evening being led around by the nose, I'd go to the mall with my wife.

It's great to be reminded of the tremendous diversity of interests and expectations among gamers. It's also good to know who you should never, ever play with.

 

[The Shaman]

If I am using those terms when I consider your examples, I'm left with... not much.

That's one of the reasons I linked the illusionism definition I did upthread; the Forge is often a model of obscurity and pedantry masquerading as erudition.

 

[Wolf1066]

So according to Wolf1066, a proper evening's gaming is one where the referee sweats blood (or spends hard-earned money) to prepare (or buy) a perfectly good plot for the players to be involved in.

Hmmmm, nowhere did I say it was the "proper" evening's gaming. I don't think in terms of "proper" or "not proper" - nor do I go around saying "that method of gaming/playing/GMing is a Big Bad".

I stated what I and my characters prefer - it's our particular social contract. They expect that I'm going to throw them interesting people to meet and interesting situations and the occasional curve ball - and I expect the same from my GM if/when I'm playing in a game run by someone else. It's all part of the fun for us.

Personally, if I wanted to spend an evening being led around by the nose, I'd go to the mall with my wife.

I wonder, in that case, what role you see the GM performing, if any form of attempting to direct the players somewhere or to something - or actually planning an adventure, NPCs etc - is so "evil"? Is it just to sit there and roll dice on tables to see if the players encounter something and, if they do, what it is?

Players decide to go right, GM rolls die, players go left, GM rolls die, table says there's an NPC (more dice) - 3rd level Gnome Fighter - players decide to kill it, GM rolls dice, players kill it, GM rolls die, it has (more dice) 300gp, players take it, players decide to go ahead, GM rolls die...

And gods forfend that the GM actually have any fun by springing an NPC on the party.

If that's the case, why have a GM at all? Honestly, sounds like (s)he'd have more fun sitting down with the rest of the players and joining in the discussion on which way they will go without a nasty GM to inflict plots or preplanned surprises on them. They could all just roll on tables to decide what's in front of them and never mind the fact that they've just turned left four times and encountered something completely different...

Who needs a GM - a group of people, some dice and a selection of tables with random things on them.

But then, the table designers are foisting their choices on you by putting only certain things in the tables - Illusionism on their part.

It's great to be reminded of the tremendous diversity of interests and expectations among gamers. It's also good to know who you should never, ever play with.

Well, at least we agree on a couple of things

 

[Lanefan]

From the Forge. Here is what they have to say about it:

Illusionism

A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS. Term coined by Paul Elliott.​

Which means we have to look at the definition of "Force".

The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike Holmes).​

If I am using those terms when I consider your examples, I'm left with... not much. You can see how I can't say if it's Illusionism or not, because I don't know what the "thematically-significant" decisions for your group are, nor what your "Social Contract" is.

So...er...given this - and a few other examples I've seen over time that from what I can tell take a fun hobby and turn it into Serious Business - why are we paying any attention at all to what this 'Forge' (whatever it is) has to say? Would we be better off just ignoring it completely and getting on with our games?

Lan-"I don't know what the "thematically-significant" decisions for my group are either"-efan

 

[The Shaman]

Hmmmm, nowhere did I say it was the "proper" evening's gaming.

Are you sure about that?

My finding has generally been my players want me to come up with things for them to get involved in - and some have gotten rather disappointed in the past if it is obvious that I am using random variables to determine what happens/who they meet because I have skimped on prep work for the session and not put together a proper evening's gaming for them.

I tried to quote you as closely as possible in my summary.

I stated what I and my characters prefer - it's our particular social contract. They expect that I'm going to throw them interesting people to meet and interesting situations and the occasional curve ball - and I expect the same from my GM if/when I'm playing in a game run by someone else. It's all part of the fun for us.

I present the players with interesting people and interesting situations and more than an occasional curveball - what I don't do is string those together into a complete ballgame. That's for the players to do.

I wonder, in that case, what role you see the GM performing . . .

Run the setting in response to the players and the characters.

. . . if any form of attempting to direct the players somewhere or to something - or actually planning an adventure, NPCs etc - is so "evil"?

Did I actually use the word "evil?"

I don't like referees who insist on inflicting their plots on my character. I particularly dislike illusionism, and in reference to the latter I used the word "anathema" - "something intensely disliked or loathed" - but did I really call either of these "evil?"

Is it just to sit there and roll dice on tables to see if the players encounter something and, if they do, what it is?

Players decide to go right, GM rolls die, players go left, GM rolls die, table says there's an NPC (more dice) - 3rd level Gnome Fighter . . .

Stop there for a moment.

Who is he? Why is he there? Where is he going? Where's he been? What're his likes and dislikes, his fears and his aspirations, his strengths and weaknesses? You seem to be assuming that a randomly encountered npc doesn't include any of the same character-building that a purpose-built npc does, but that's by no means a given. While some referees are sweating and bleeding over their perfectly good plots, I'm rolling up my random encounters and answering these kinds of questions before we sit down at the table, so that gnome fighter isn't a nameless, faceless, souless tally of experience points and treasure . . .

. . . players decide to kill it, GM rolls dice, players kill it, GM rolls die, it has (more dice) 300gp, players take it . . .

. . . on the way to the next encounter in the referee's notes, but rather a living, breathing part of the game-world.

This is what I do when I'm behind the screen: I bring the game-world to life around the adventurers.

What the players do with that game-world is the adventure. Maybe the gnome becomes an ally. Maybe he becomes a rival. Maybe he provides them with some information, or they provide some to him. The thread that stitches these encounters together is provided by the players and their characters. The reason this works is that the adventurers are pursuing the goals the players set for them, chasing their dreams instead of a 'plot.' That random npc may become a recurring character in the game, even an integral one, because of what the adventurers do, not the referee.

Random isn't brainless, nor is it boring. Unless the referee is, of course.

And gods forfend that the GM actually have any fun by springing an NPC on the party.

There are few things I enjoy more than springing npcs on the adventurers. It's where the game lives.

If that's the case, why have a GM at all?

Why indeed?

Honestly, sounds like (s)he'd have more fun sitting down with the rest of the players and joining in the discussion on which way they will go without a nasty GM to inflict plots or preplanned surprises on them. They could all just roll on tables to decide what's in front of them and never mind the fact that they've just turned left four times and encountered something completely different...

Who needs a GM - a group of people, some dice and a selection of tables with random things on them.

Because the referee runs the setting. Someone needs to take the results of those rolls and those tables and intepret the results, give them a sense of place, enable them to react to the adventurers in meaningful ways.

But then, the table designers are foisting their choices on you by putting only certain things in the tables - Illusionism on their part.

No, that's setting-building, and it has nothing to do with illusionism in that it doesn't present the players with false choices and meaningless decisions.

 

[Wolf1066]

Are you sure about that?

I thought I was...

I present the players with interesting people and interesting situations and more than an occasional curveball - what I don't do is string those together into a complete ballgame.

And in what way is the springing of a particular tavern with particular NPCs and an interesting situation (as I was referring to in my post) "stringing those together into a complete ballgame"?

When you create those interesting people, situations and curveballs - prior to game time, going by the next quote, in what way are you disagreeing with my practice of creating interesting people, situations and curveballs?

I'm not saying that the characters have to respond to them in a certain way - my notes are full of "contingencies" as it were: all the information I think I might need no matter which way they decide to play it. If they plan to fight, fine, I've got the stats for that, if they want to get information, I have that, too - and so on.

Who is he? Why is he there? Where is he going? Where's he been? What're his likes and dislikes, his fears and his aspirations, his strengths and weaknesses? You seem to be assuming that a randomly encountered npc doesn't include any of the same character-building that a purpose-built npc does, but that's by no means a given. While some referees are sweating and bleeding over their perfectly good plots, I'm rolling up my random encounters and answering these kinds of questions before we sit down at the table, so that gnome fighter isn't a nameless, faceless, souless tally of experience points and treasure . . .. . . on the way to the next encounter in the referee's notes, but rather a living, breathing part of the game-world.

And a "random" encounter worked out prior to the game differs from what I was discussing in what respect?

You seem to be assuming that because I said I have no problem with a situation or an NPC being sprung on the PCs, that they are expected to respond to it in a set way.

That is not the case at all - I provide the "stories" that are running in the place they are in - "stories" (lives of NPCs who have goals within the game world) that the players can interact with as they like - or not if they so desire, they can wander off elsewhere. But I see nothing wrong with springing one of those stories - in the form of those NPCs or their actions - on the PCs, wherever and whenever might reasonably fit in with the game world.

What the players do with that game-world is the adventure. Maybe the gnome becomes an ally. Maybe he becomes a rival. Maybe he provides them with some information, or they provide some to him.

And the same happens in the adventures I run. A case in point: I decided to see how the players would react to being not merely mugged, but mugged by an armed 11-year-old. Legally, they could shoot him as a clear and present danger, realistically, however, they'd cop all kinds of flak for that and probably wouldn't feel too great.

So the next time the players were just wandering about on foot, I had this character accost them at gunpoint. I had no idea how they would react - kill him, disarm him somehow, no idea.

One of the players gave him the money from his wallet and said "I like your style, if you want to earn more, I've got work for you."

The player then worked the kid into a plot he came up with to mess with the heads of the other player characters. He told me in secret what he was doing or planning so I could convey to the PCs what they saw going on around them. They had utterly no idea that a lot of what was happening was being done by this kid at a fellow player's behest.

The kid was a character I created and sprung on them - they "had no choice" about that. And that sounds remarkably similar to:

There are few things I enjoy more than springing npcs on the adventurers. It's where the game lives.

No, that's setting-building, and it has nothing to do with illusionism in that it doesn't present the players with false choices and meaningless decisions.

And likewise, creating a world with a large number of "known quantities" in it, ready made NPCs with their own agendas and goals bustling around in that world and striving to get what they want is "setting-building" as well.

There's a world of difference, as previously noted, between a "false choice" of whether or not they encounter a situation or character (which, going by your post you seem to have no problem with) and a false choice of whether or not they succeed (all doors lead to the magic sword or whatever).

 

[Fifth Element]

I tried to quote you as closely as possible in my summary.

You missed the rather important part that followed immediately after the part you bolded: "...for them." I'd say that makes a difference.
​