Theory: Coming to the Table

[howandwhy99]

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.

I'm back. And skimming.

Thanks for the nice explanation, but I don't think the "free and clear phase" actually happens in D&D. That would require everyone stopping and deciding as a group what happens next out of character, out of the game world, out of game. That's kind of silly in my opinion. To add rules to such a situation, who gets to actually "be God" for the moment, decisively proves what is happening is not a roleplaying game.

You see, instead of the players competing to succeed as their characters you now have a group of players competing with one another like Gods up on Mt. Olympus. What the mortal actually do has no bearing on their own decisions. These mortals have no decisions, only Fate. The Gods above (the Players) decide what each will do and the only competitive or game element to all this is how well you can convince the others Gods to give you the "God Power".

That isn't roleplaying. That's just convincing your friends that your little G.I.Joe dude can do whatever god awesome coolness you want him to at the moment because "it would be so cool".

Is this fun play? Sure, kids do this all the time.
Is it challenging play? No. The only challenge is convincing your friends you're right or gaming whatever "who gets the God Power" allocation system you've tacked on.

 

[LostSoul]

The mechanical aspect is "Select an appropriate skill." Appropriate in this case is defined in story terms; Hunting and Seafaring are activities that might involve demon sharks, Scrimshaw or Diplomacy are generally not. If there is some disagreement as to what skills are appropriate or not, you have a conventional resolution to that question. The conventional resolution cascades down to the narrative situation with an answer, which then answers what skill to roll, which is then rolled, producing the answer ("we spotted it").

The whole chain is the answer to the question: do we spot the demon shark?

Very nice. I get it now.

Do you think it would be helpful for games to detail their resolution systems in this way?

Also, when someone states an action and calls for a roll (DM or player), is that conventional resolution as well?

 

[LostSoul]

Thanks for the nice explanation, but I don't think the "free and clear phase" actually happens in D&D. That would require everyone stopping and deciding as a group what happens next out of character, out of the game world, out of game. That's kind of silly in my opinion. To add rules to such a situation, who gets to actually "be God" for the moment, decisively proves what is happening is not a roleplaying game.

So something like this

Player 1: I'm going to move over here and attack the orc.
Player 2: No, don't move there - move to this square, so then I can move in and flank him!
Player 1: Yeah, okay. I move over there.
DM: The orc will get an Opportunity Attack.
Player 1: That's fine.
DM: <rolls>​

never happens in D&D?

 

[howandwhy99]

Eh, I think it depends on the expectations and desires of the group. Besides no rpg covers every situation, so at a certain point the GM may be forced to do whatever they feel is right in that particular instance. Another thing I wonder is in your above post you claim that game rules are only suggestions or oppinions of game designers, if treated like this then the "make whatever you want up" mantra seems totally justified, right? Regardless of whether it's the GM or entire group making it up.

The GM is choosing rule mechanics that assist him in managing a consistent, understandable, and playable world. If the rules don't fit the functioning of the world, then the GM is going to ditch them for something that does. "Making whatever you want up" is not the mantra. It must be consistent with the world.

To head off one possible reply. Yes, the DM makes up the world taking the Player Characters into account. Yes, sometimes a world element is not yet constructed when the players interact with it at the table. So the DM has to "wing it". They wing it based upon how the world works so far. And from then on this little part of the world works this way consistently.

Of course, if after the game is over and a player mentions to the GM that honey isn't really as flammable as gasoline, for instance, then the whole group can decide to change it. But that's like taking a player aside and saying "elves don't hibernate during the winter". It only matters if it's bothering everyone else.

Just few thoughts & questions... Who decides how the world functions? If it is the DM then he has narrative control which is shaped by his desires. If it is co-operative then everyone has narrative control and it is again shaped by their desires.

Also what about exception based design like 4e, where an NPC is not the same as a PC and does not resolve all their actions on the same level playing field?

The world functions based upon suggestions by the players and decisions by the GM. Once the GM decides however, he can't just willy nilly change things whenever he wants. That's the difference here. The rules apply to everyone equally. NPCs and PCs. Narrative as described above:

Narrative - someone uses their authorial privilege to specify a story-appropriate result

is just doing whatever you like whenever you like. Actual DMing requires an earnest attempt at objectivity on the part of the DM to present a consistent, understandable, playable world (to repeat myself). Otherwise you get the "Hand of God" DM and a lousy experience for everyone but the narcissist DM.

Saying everyone should behave that way doesn't make the game better, but worse.

 

[howandwhy99]

So something like this

Player 1: I'm going to move over here and attack the orc.
Player 2: No, don't move there - move to this square, so then I can move in and flank him!
Player 1: Yeah, okay. I move over there.
DM: The orc will get an Opportunity Attack.
Player 1: That's fine.
DM: <rolls>​

never happens in D&D?

Thank you for posting this.

The most important thing to remember here is that even with bad game design, like the game you illustrate above, playing in character is still possible.

While Player 1 and Player 2 are not speaking in character, they are speaking in 3rd Person. Any DM worth his salt is going to interpret this as players speaking to one another on the battlefield. This means their foes can hear them as they devise plans.

If they have a means like telepathy to communicate (possibly) unheard by the enemies, then the players should communicate that to the DM.

What is happening above is not happening out of game or out of character. It is merely very low level roleplaying by folks who:
A. don't care to speak in character, and
B. don't care to act without reference to the "rules".

Sadly, this limits both their imagination and their thinking in terms of what is possible. Moreover, if the DM thinks the rules dictate what is and what isn't possible, then the game is going to be bad for everyone. Unfortunately.

The world dictates what is and what isn't possible. Not the rules or the GM.

 

[apoptosis]

Thank you for posting this.

The most important thing to remember here is that even with bad game design, like the game you illustrate above, playing in character is still possible.

While Player 1 and Player 2 are not speaking in character, they are speaking in 3rd Person. Any DM worth his salt is going to interpret this as players speaking to one another on the battlefield. This means their foes can hear them as they devise plans.

If they have a means like telepathy to communicate (possibly) unheard by the enemies, then the players should communicate that to the DM.

What is happening above is not happening out of game or out of character. It is merely very low level roleplaying by folks who:
A. don't care to speak in character, and
B. don't care to act without reference to the "rules".

Sadly, this limits both their imagination and their thinking in terms of what is possible. Moreover, if the DM thinks the rules dictate what is and what isn't possible, then the game is going to be bad for everyone. Unfortunately.

The world dictates what is and what isn't possible. Not the rules or the GM.

I take it you don't like game rules that both support and encourage meta-gaming (which is a misnomer...but rules that exist outside of the "world space")

 

[howandwhy99]

This is an enormously narrow definition of what goes on in an RPG. And what if the game is modeling a narrative, ie, the stuff that goes on inside a work of fiction, and not some simulated 'real world'. It that case the line between physical action resolution and direct narrative control are blurred.

Check with Greg Costikyan. He says this better than I do. Essentially telling a story isn't a game. Games cannot have their outcomes predetermined. It stops being a game if they are. Or it becomes a game about something wholly different a la Zeus and Hera above.

What you may want is to sit down and do round robin storytelling. This can be fun and I did it a few times at Boy Scout camp as a kid. I'd do it again even.

But most of the stuff I've heard about storytelling games is the desire for a "quality" story unlike what you get from traditional roleplaying games. Here I'd disagree with what qualifies as quality, but if that is your number one priority it absolutely should never suffer under the dictates of some game. Good storytelling doesn't come about with dice mechanics. Nor unnecessary devotion to linearity. It's probably best to sit down at a table and write out a good first rough draft. And absolutely go over it again when your done for errors. Then write a second draft, and even a third. Keep reviewing, pulling it apart, have others read it, and focus very strongly on the whatever it is you deem that quality is your looking for. If you want to try it as a group, go for it, but I hear it's harder for authors that way. But roleplaying out the dialogue might give you better characterization. A lot of authors IMHO don't have a wide range in terms of displaying various personalities in dialogue. They just sound like themselves.

You are assuming that "let's pretend" can't be sophisticated. Why is that? And what prevents rules-heavy play from being immature? I'm sure plenty of juvnenile play was undertaken in the name of Rolemaster...

"Let's pretend" is limited by one major element compared to roleplaying games. It isn't a game. There is simply no way to win. There is not zest, no persistent reality that pushes back when you touch it. That reality is real, at least fictionally, in an RPG. The "let's pretend" is a situation where everyone constantly has to step out of character to keep the whole process going. That's hardly fun and it takes considerable more effort to keep OOC information separate from IC.

Think about it. The divine mystery of the world, the unknown to be explored. How on earth do you write your own riddles, so to speak, and then enjoy the pleasure of solving them yourself? Memory loss? An RPG let's you do this as a player.

 

[howandwhy99]

I take it you don't like game rules that both support and encourage meta-gaming (which is a misnomer...but rules that exist outside of the "world space")

We agree here. Metagaming is acting with information your character would never have. It's hard enough to stay in character without playing at such a low level as seen above. What if those two weren't even in the same room? Lots of folks don't even care about that. Or something like giving advice to others when your PC is unconscious is just as big a gaming faux pas.

By "rules that exist outside of 'world space'" I take it you don't mean table rules like No Swearing, right?

I think the rules you are talking about are completely unnecessary in an RPG. It's the whole Mt. Olympus thing all over again.

If you want to play a game where you get into family drama, then start a family. If you want to get political, run for office.

If you really must have things in a very tiny situational space, then play a one-shot where the focus of play is highly defined before it even begins.

Those generally don't lead to a lot of depth outside of that particular situation, but they can be fun. IMO, optional breadth and depth is best. Be abstract or specific when and where you want. Don't let rules stop you. (though lack of rules might hinder the DM in doing his job)

 

[LostSoul]

The world dictates what is and what isn't possible. Not the rules or the GM.

Who defines the world, and what is possible in it?

 

[howandwhy99]

Who defines the world, and what is possible in it?

Most of that stuff happens before game play begins.

"We want a fantasy game where we can blow stuff up with fireballs!"

"And lots of runes and stuff that we can mix and match to make cool magic happen"

Okay. Likewise,

"Try and make characters that actually fit into such a gameworld, okay guys? No more C3POs and Frylock from Aqua Teen Hunger Force"

And then the DM constructs a world with input from the Player created characters.

And as I've mentioned in a previous post, if the players don't care for the implausibility of flammable honey bombs, then they can mention something to the DM afterward. Or if they want to break character, they can bring it up in game.

What I think you are trying to pin on me is that somehow "Authority" exists in terms of who has the power to say what really happens and who doesn't. That "authority" is up to the game world. The world exists separate from both the rules and the GM. The rules are changed when they don't fit how the world works and the GM operates in objective, good faith only when following the actuality of that world.