That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[Emerikol]

Yup, sure. but I find dyed in the wool D&D and OSR GMs are more likely to be precious about their perceived role and authority. That's not a criticism either, as much as sounds like one, as those GMs have had to forge their style from nothing because the games they play don't provide any of the mechanical support or direction that PbtA game do. A lot of those GMs tend to look at, say, Dungeon World, and immediately get upset at what they perceive to be a ton of constraints on how they run their game. In my experience though, the Keeper moves in good PbtA games tend to encompass pretty much anything a good D&D DM is doing anyway, it just takes some time and experience to realize it.

I think precious is the wrong word. Maybe defensive of their role as GM?

In my games, I've always held the GM to be the final authority on everything. Of course I am also aware that this phrase is true "Whatever the DM says goes but if he says enough stupid stuff, the players will go too". I also hold that character sensory input from the DM is the only real connection to the campaign setting the players have. I very much tend to follow the rules to publicly change them ahead of the game but in a session, the players can't know enough in many cases to make a case the rules aren't being followed.

One of my quotes is "Are you going to believe the established theory laid down by various scholars or are you going to believe your own eyes?"

So to the degree the players as their characters know the rules, it is knowledge held to be generally true across the land. It's what scholars have figured out over the years and it's pretty reliable but it's not infallible.

For example, if I in the real world came upon a rock that was just floating in the air, I would be quite surprised to see it. I understand gravity should pull the rock down. I would not dismiss gravity as nonsense at that point. I also would not dismiss the fact I have a floating rock right in front of me. Perhaps, I'd immediately begin to try and figure out what other scientific factor is affect that rock. In a world of magic, most people even smart people would be far more open minded about what is possible.

 

[Emerikol]

The whole point of 1GP=1XP is that it's not the killing that levels you up, but the looting. If you can do the looting without the killing, good on ye, bro!

While any x.p. system is bound to have some downsides, I like x.p. == gold better than x.p. for monsters. I find PCs acting out of character as a motivation to gain x.p. to be far worse when killing monsters is the motive. Gold is worthwhile even if there were no x.p. So PCs chasing gold is realistic even without the x.p. motive. Killing that last fleeing goblin just because you don't want to lose the x.p. is not good I don't think.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wouldn't subscribe to that philosophy at all. I can see how it fits though for some of the styles people here like to play.

It describes your play as well. The method of negotiation differs -- you front load yours into the social contract of the game to establish that the GM has primacy in future negotiations, but that negotiation still happens.

 

[Emerikol]

It describes your play as well. The method of negotiation differs -- you front load yours into the social contract of the game to establish that the GM has primacy in future negotiations, but that negotiation still happens.

But when you reduce his point to that, then it really no longer becomes a point. I mean isn't that true of pretty much every single social activity ever imagined? So if that was his point, he is just restating the obvious.

I think he was making a more precise point than that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But when you reduce his point to that, then it really no longer becomes a point. I mean isn't that true of pretty much every single social activity ever imagined? So if that was his point, he is just restating the obvious.

I think he was making a more precise point than that.

Nope. It's important to step back and look at a game from this distance so you don't reify things closer in as the main functional description. RPGs are social engagements -- they are negotiations about what we're all going to pretend together. If you don't keep this in mind throughout, you'll confuse yourself into thinking RPGs are about pretending a specific way. You act as if this is obvious, and then make arguments that ignore it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While any x.p. system is bound to have some downsides, I like x.p. == gold better than x.p. for monsters. I find PCs acting out of character as a motivation to gain x.p. to be far worse when killing monsters is the motive. Gold is worthwhile even if there were no x.p. So PCs chasing gold is realistic even without the x.p. motive. Killing that last fleeing goblin just because you don't want to lose the x.p. is not good I don't think.

I don't think there's as much of a gap between gold = XP and XP from monsters as you're suggesting. If the last fleeing goblin might possibly have a few gp on him, the exact same motive is applied to the player. You seem to think that means there's inherently a better correlation between player and PC motives because of that, but I don't think that's necessarily true at all. It's only really true if every PC is the sort of murderous vagrant who would sell his grandmother or risk his life for a handful of gold pieces. The moment any other motivations get into the mix, gold = XP and and XP from monsters both start looking pretty anti-immersive (particularly with certain classes - Paladins, Clerics, Druids, Rangers, etc).

Re: immersion in general, looking back over 30 years I don't think I've ever seen it seem to be as valuable as engagement, and they're clearly two different things. Immersion being very much thinking within the world, but engagement being caring about stuff within the world. I've seen immersive play without much engagement, and I don't think anyone had a whole lot of fun, but I've never seen engaged play be anything less than huge fun. If you have a group where immersion is necessary for engagement (I've never seen it, but could imagine it), then I could see it becoming very important I guess.

 

[S'mon]

Nope. It's important to step back and look at a game from this distance so you don't reify things closer in as the main functional description. RPGs are social engagements -- they are negotiations about what we're all going to pretend together.

My game is a Standard Form Contract.

 

[Emerikol]

Nope. It's important to step back and look at a game from this distance so you don't reify things closer in as the main functional description. RPGs are social engagements -- they are negotiations about what we're all going to pretend together. If you don't keep this in mind throughout, you'll confuse yourself into thinking RPGs are about pretending a specific way. You act as if this is obvious, and then make arguments that ignore it.

It may be important but that doesn't make it not obvious. On board game night when we all decide on Settlers of Cataan instead of Ticket to Ride, a negotiation has occurred. So some sort of negotiation is true of all games involving 2 or more people.

What may not be obvious is roleplaying games are not just one game. That beyond choosing D&D perhaps you should also decide on the style of game. In my case though there really isn't much of a negotiation. I announce I have a campaign ready to go in my preferred style and ask who is interested. Those who are join my game and those who are not do not. I'd even go so far as to add that the beyond the game, and the style, there is also the theme of the world. So I might have a player want to play one themed game but not another. But there really isn't much negotiation going on. It's take it or leave it.

 

[prabe]

What may not be obvious is roleplaying games are not just one game. That beyond choosing D&D perhaps you should also decide on the style of game. In my case though there really isn't much of a negotiation. I announce I have a campaign ready to go in my preferred style and ask who is interested. Those who are join my game and those who are not do not. I'd even go so far as to add that the beyond the game, and the style, there is also the theme of the world. So I might have a player want to play one themed game but not another. But there really isn't much negotiation going on. It's take it or leave it.

I think the argument @Ovinomancer is making is at least consistent with "take it or leave it" being at least in the neighborhood of negotiation, and while I wouldn't (probably) have chosen to describe what happens in play as "negotiation"--at least, not as a universal--it's ... not inaccurate enough for me to argue with.

 

[Emerikol]

I think the argument @Ovinomancer is making is at least consistent with "take it or leave it" being at least in the neighborhood of negotiation, and while I wouldn't (probably) have chosen to describe what happens in play as "negotiation"--at least, not as a universal--it's ... not inaccurate enough for me to argue with.

I'm sure I respond to and argue with @Ovinomancer too much no doubt.