Theory: Coming to the Table

[apoptosis]

Who is querying you? I can respond to them directly if you post their questions. Yes, there are RPGs that tell the DM or GM to "do whatever you feel like". These are poor designs.

When a DM says "this happens" they are merely relating to you what happened as a result of the way the world functioned. It isn't his or her desire for it to operate that way. And playing NPCs is a different role for a DM. Here they play the character just as a player would play their own PC. If that NPC attempts something in the world, it is adjudicated in the same manner as for a PC. (Like attacking a PC requires a to-hit roll)

I was not very clear. I meant i had queries about what was meant with narrative control.

I am saying games have rules that whoever (GM or player) wins the challenge (or uses up resources) gets to have narrative control (this is what conflict resolution is pretty much about) about a certain issue.

You could have it such that if I as a player wins a challenge (vs the GM) I get to say that this NPC exists in the world and is willing to help my character.

Those are (IMO) the best game designs as it has less need of rules that invariably poorly simulate reality.

GMs playing characters or even adjucating what the weather is is the GM deciding "this happens". Now most of the time that is not involved in a resolution but it definitely can be.

A thief wants to climb a wall. He falls. Some game have rules for damage from falling (and most all falling rules are completely unrealistic) some games dont have them and the GM decides what happens when the character falls. There are many types of examples where the GM steps in and says "what happens"

NPC interaction has historically been probably the most prevalent example.

 

[apoptosis]

Dont want to derail the thread though since it is about Pawsplay modeling and not virtues of different rules paradigms

 

[Imaro]

Who is querying you? I can respond to them directly if you post their questions. Yes, there are RPGs that tell the DM or GM to "do whatever you feel like". These are poor designs.

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.

When a DM says "this happens" they are merely relating to you what happened as a result of the way the world functioned. It isn't his or her desire for it to operate that way. And playing NPCs is a different role for a DM. Here they play the character just as a player would play their own PC. If that NPC attempts something in the world, it is adjudicated in the same manner as for a PC. (Like attacking a PC requires a to-hit roll)

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?

 

[apoptosis]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. For example:

My PC was trying to find a demon shark. Another PC was helping me. I described my PC climbing to the crow's nest to spot its trail; the other PC said, "Look for the fluke!" I rolled Seafaring, he rolled Hunting. Success came up, and we spotted it.

Now is this narrative or mechanical? There's nothing in the Seafaring or Hunting skill descriptions about spotting demon sharks.

Good example and it can be even more ambiguous..

Are you rolling to detect the demon shark (the GM said that there are Demon Sharks in the water)...

or are you rolling so you can dictate "there are demon sharks in the water" and now adding an element to the scene (even more narrative control)..which is how some games work. (circles in BW for instance, if you succeed on your circles role an NPC that you wanted that didnt exist before now exists...actually if you fail the NPC also exists but is now acting against your wishes)

Imaro..you captured what i meant...my words were a bit clumsy (work and message boards dont go well together)

 

[pawsplay]

How was that? Am I getting this, or were those answers lame?

It sounds like you're getting where I'm coming from.

 

[pawsplay]

Looks interesting and will take a while to delve into it. I do have questions about the above.

Games can have mechanical-narrative resolution (TSOY, Sorcerer, BW in certain parts). You make a skill check and can use authorial power (I make my sailing check and I as a player can say "we travel to the island and actually get 2 extra days ahead of our pursuers")

So you might want to add that games can have a hybrid of 1 and 2. Basically this has historically been covered by what has been traditionally defined as conflict (or stake stetting) vs task resolution; thisof course might both be under option 1 above, but i was not sure so wanted to query that.

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.

 

[Mallus]

A player can attempt an action, a DM can model how reality operates, but neither ever has the authority to say "this is what happens because I say so".

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.

RPGs were made specifically so this kind of childish Let's Pretend play could be moved beyond.

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...

 

[howandwhy99]

I am saying games have rules that whoever (GM or player) wins the challenge (or uses up resources) gets to have narrative control (this is what conflict resolution is pretty much about) about a certain issue.

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.

You could have it such that if I as a player wins a challenge (vs the GM) I get to say that this NPC exists in the world and is willing to help my character.

Those are (IMO) the best game designs as it has less need of rules that invariably poorly simulate reality.

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".

GMs playing characters or even adjucating what the weather is is the GM deciding "this happens". Now most of the time that is not involved in a resolution but it definitely can be.

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

A thief wants to climb a wall. He falls. Some game have rules for damage from falling (and most all falling rules are completely unrealistic) some games dont have them and the GM decides what happens when the character falls. There are many types of examples where the GM steps in and says "what happens"

NPC interaction has historically been probably the most prevalent example.

A game without rules for adjudication are simply not helpful. Bad designs. Does this mean you need millions of rules to cover millions of possible outcomes? Of course not. But when things like your thief falling happen, and happen without any rules anywhere to optionally assist, then the GM has to determine what would happen in the world. This isn't "Playing God". This is following the pre-determined description of the world. When there is no pre-determination, the DM makes up a ruling on the spot and that stands.

Later, after the game, rulings can be contested. Or things like, "wouldn't falling make more sense if we did it this way?" can be suggested and agreed upon. 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.

 

[pawsplay]

Please don't try and redefine concepts like genre, style, tone, and theme. These are bigger than RPGs and already have common held definitions in the dictionary. Needlessly messing up their real meaning with self-defined jargon only you use hurts what you are trying to do here. I suggest listing the dictionary meaning you agree with and then illustrating how this applies to RPGs.

I was not redefining them, I was simply defining them, so others would have the benefit of knowing how I am using the terms. I have a lot of background in literature, so my use of the terms was mainly literary. I also added some notes about those qualities that are specific to RPGs. I have to do that, because for the most part, there is not an existing body of work that talks extensively about genre, style, tone and theme in RPGs.

The hierarchy of resolution is also biased.

It is decided. Whether my evaluation is correct or not is debatable. But I am not proceeding from some prior agenda.

It basically says rules are the best way to resolve tasks and the worst way is the one you and I use everyday in normal life. Doesn't that seem a bit backwards to you?

No. Life is, as they say, "red in tooth and claw." It is rules that allow social groups to function effectively.

The priority of how actions are resolved during play should really solely be the group's decision and not the designers, no? Designers can only offer options and opinions on their use.

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the rules, not the text of any particular edition. People playing a game ARE game designers, because they interpret, use, and modify the published game as they see fit.

Plus, what you are calling Narrative control has no place in RPGs. In an RPG no one has the right to be the hand of God. Playing God may seem fun, but ultimately whatever is toyed with ends up losing its sense of reality. Play God long enough and even you or I will lose our sense of reality. No one in an RPG gets to choose "I want this to happen, because that would be cool". A player can attempt an action, a DM can model how reality operates, but neither ever has the authority to say "this is what happens because I say so". RPGs were made specifically so this kind of childish Let's Pretend play could be moved beyond. Otherwise you might as well just say "Bob decides when anyone hits". That's not what is going on here.

That is precisely what happens. Someone must decide. The rules specify who is able to say what happens at any given point. That's not playing God. The dictatorial, one-sided depiction you give is bad play. We all know that players can just walk away from the table if the game is poorly managed.

This essay is about good management, with "good" being defined slightly differently for each group.

So it is necessary to define who has this control, otherwise you DO end up with Let's Pretend.

The rest of what you wrote can be summed up as "What do the people playing really want?" That question is very easily answered by simply asking the individuals involved.

Many people, upon discovering that their campaign has dried up after three weeks with no explanation, have discovered otherwise.

Trying to second guess or get psychological and find "what they are really saying" is only going to lose one friends. It's not cool to psychoanalyze your classmates.

So you're saying it's better to try to read everyone's minds and let them try to read yours? In any case, understanding people is no cause for rudely pointing out things they don't want pointed out. I used an example specifically of how material entered the game people did NOT want to talk about, and being aware of that is helpful.

 

[pawsplay]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. For example:

My PC was trying to find a demon shark. Another PC was helping me. I described my PC climbing to the crow's nest to spot its trail; the other PC said, "Look for the fluke!" I rolled Seafaring, he rolled Hunting. Success came up, and we spotted it.

Now is this narrative or mechanical? There's nothing in the Seafaring or Hunting skill descriptions about spotting demon sharks.

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?