Theory: Coming to the Table

[apoptosis]

As I wrote above: These three modes should be considered three primary colors which can be mixed, not mutually exclusive categories. Hybrid forms are assumed to be the default, rather than exceptional. These are not categories of play, these are modes that combine to answer the question "what happens?" It's because of those types of games you mention (mechanical resolution, then pass the narrator hat) that I specifically did not want to tie the resolution modes to different times or kinds of action. I just say, mechanical resolution was used to decide who had authorial control, and the authorial player is also the narrator.

You did say that about colors and I completely missed it on reading, though I guess from the example it seemed more like they can be used at different times (chronologically mixed) than in the same resolution.

But you definitely said it and i just completely missed it. So my apologies.

You know a worksheet or grid of what you wrote might make it easy to actually template for analytical purposes (not to analyze what you wrote but to use to analyze a gaming experience)

 

[howandwhy99]

I see there are a number of folks interested in my couple of posts. I've got to work a bit, but it might be best to set this all off into another thread. I'm not trying to usurp your thread pawsplay or keep you from doing what you want to do. I'm only trying to help you from making common mistakes. I'll answer your questions in this thread about my comments later.

 

[pawsplay]

But forcing rules on a DM is like a DM forcing Players only to play certain types of characters. Neither really has any authority over the other to do so.

What you are saying that is in your preferred style, the DM has complete authorial control over resolution systems and the players have complete authorial control over character creation and portrayal. You are not arguing authorial control, you are saying it is nearly inviolate.

 

[pawsplay]

I see there are a number of folks interested in my couple of posts. I've got to work a bit, but it might be best to set this all off into another thread. I'm not trying to usurp your thread pawsplay or keep you from doing what you want to do. I'm only trying to help you from making common mistakes. I'll answer your questions in this thread about my comments later.

Feel free to help me all you like. This is not a vanity thread, this is a discussion thread.

 

[Mallus]

Games that give either the power to narrate are poorly designed games.

Or they're simply games you don't like.

What you are suggesting is Let's Pretend, not roleplaying games.

The idea that it's only a roleplaying game if it features a low-level task resolution mechanics rather than, say, a more abstract, higher-level conflict resolution mechanics is... well... wrong.

Again, "this happens" is the DM telling you what happens as a result of the world functioning.

Much like the spoon, there is no world.

This isn't a desire, but a judgment. A DM acting out of desire vs. judgment is one essentially "Playing God" again. That's universally known as bad DMing.

Now who's psychoanalyzing? Judgment, desire, imagination, the rules-as-written, sometimes a nice glass of 16 year-old Scotch... all of the those things inform my decisions when I run a game.

 

[apoptosis]

This is the myth I'm objecting to. The DM doesn't get to say "what happened" when the NPC hits and the player does when his or her PC hits. The DM says what happens in the world as a result of the Players interacting with it. Games that give either the power to narrate are poorly designed games.

What you are suggesting is Let's Pretend, not roleplaying games. You don't need rules for Let's Pretend at all. Well, no more than "let's all get along and have fun".

Because Pawsplay doesnt mind

I very much disagree.

Many games like BW, Sorcerer, TSoY all have in depth rules that allow for narrative control. They are very much games and in some cases very gamist, they are just not detailed at the level of task resolution. Many people (myself included) think these games are really great games.

These games have very definite rules. The rules though are not trying to simulate a task but have higher abstraction to output the actual end result.

Some games like BW and TSoY have both granular and detailed resolutions that can be used during a conflict (BW has either Fight or simple test while TSoY has a simple conflict or bringing down the pain).

4E actually seems to have this as well. Background skills are completely narrative (basically a bit of GM fiat). If that is bad or good is another question but it has them as well.

In the end it is all about who is deciding what happens. The GM or one of the players. There is no world, there is on physics to the world. At best you have someone who will try and simulate what will happen based on our known world.

Another example...player A starts a fire in a building..
who decides whether it burns down the building vs just causing a bit of fire and smoke damage.

1. Some games the GM would do it by fiat (his idea of what would be the logical result of factors in the imaginary world)

2. a few games might actually have fire building rules that can model the entire process,

3. while, in other games, the building burning down is the actual conflict not starting the fire, so if Player A wins the challenge he gets to decide the building burns down.

In the end the 2 of the 3 choices (i guess there could be more) the result is someone basically playing God and deciding "what happens"

 

[Mallus]

Many games like BW, Sorcerer, TSoY all have in depth rules that allow for narrative control.

I cede narration rights to the players in my long-running 3.5e campaign from time to time, and my Eberron DM has been experimenting with doing it, too. We find it to be totally compatible with the more traditional resolution techniques.

 

[apoptosis]

I cede narration rights to the players in my long-running 3.5e campaign from time to time, and my Eberron DM has been experimenting with doing it, too. We find it to be totally compatible with the more traditional resolution techniques.

I completely agree. I think the different techniques can work well together. The tricky parts for a formalized rule system (vs individual groups using a homebrew system) is delineating when to use different methods and the scope of narrative control.

I personally like stake setting vs post rolling narrative control (Stating what happens if the roll succeeds or fails before the roll)

 

[SweeneyTodd]

One way to look at it is something that some games label the "Free and clear phase", which is that time that you're all sort of kibitzing over what might happen next but it's not decided yet. (That phase doesn't formally exist in a lot of game rules, but regardless, it happens, even if it's only during the action declaration phase or somesuch.)

Stuff during "free and clear" is explicitly *not* happening in the game world. It takes some kind of consensus to resolve that stuff down into "what happens".

For D&D, one example is "I chop the orc's head off", roll, hit, injured but not killed, DM describes the outcome. We didn't have to do any mental gymnastics to understand that the player is attempting to attack from what he said.

So what is it that locks down "what really happens"? Depends on the game, but usually it's the GM's decision. He says "The orc staggers and bleeds", okay, we can all picture that.

Well, in those dirty Let's Pretend RPGs, sometimes either it's not just the GM's decision, or the "free and clear" phase is a lot more open, but it's still the GM's decision what to include. It depends on the system.

(And to be honest, this kind of thing can happen informally in any game. Any time someone's listened to their players come up with theories as to what the Big Bad is up to and then thought, "Hey, I like that, I'm gonna steal it", they've done it. In that case the GM signing off on the input happened much later.)

My point is that even a game where the player can describe meeting someone on the road and introduce them as a new character is still using the same basic systems as a traditional RPG, just for different purposes and in different ways. Whether or not you're comfortable with the players having narrative power is a separate issue from whether or not it's possible to do so in an RPG.

 

[apoptosis]

I brought this in from another thread you responded to.

The basic approach Gumshoe seems to take is "If not finding something would stop the investigation cold, then the PC's find it." I think that fits pretty well with 4e, and it's what I did when I was running D20 modern.

Basically, failed investigation rolls aren't about whether or not you can continue the investigation, but about how tough a time you have along the way. One of the Dungeon adventures for 4e basically worked that way, in that the skill challenge wasn't "Find the lost paladin, or don't", it was "Find the lost paladin without getting into more trouble along the way, or find him plus some trouble."

This is I think great advice for resolving most challenges (and ties in with the entire resolution idea)
.
We have a term in our group called Zilch-play (someone else might have made it up and we stole it).

Zilch-play is when basically nothing happens. When you keep failing challenges and the result is basically nothing. My general belief is that success of failure of a challenge should result in something interesting happening. The worst failure of a game is to bore the participants which is what zilch-play tends to accomplish.

Narrative control for players (and stake setting) is a good mechanic to prevent this (i am sure there are many others).

The worst for me is when you are successful with your challenge and it still results in nothing interesting.

You break into the mayors house and break into his vault and find 'nothing' and you sneak out again, no one the wiser without finding anything interesting in the house. I am not not talking about not finding what you are looking for but basically the entire scene results into nothing happening, no plot moved forward, little drama was created. This type of zilch-play drives me crazy.

Now i understand that this conflicts with simulationism but given limited time to play games, every challenge should result in something interesting happening (even if is bad for teh characters)

Resolution (IMHO) should either create new conflict or satisfy an existing conflict (hopefully dramatically) which should hopefully also lead to a new conflict.

This is of course more difficult when doing task resolution but not necessarily. It is why i like the say yes or role rule. If there is no conflict just let the action succeed.

Wow ...that was bit too soapboxish.