Theory: Coming to the Table

[apoptosis]

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)

We are really far apart in what we in enjoy in an RPG. I actually think the worst advice given in many RPG books is the idea that immersion is the ulitmate achievement in an RPG (some more infer than say this).

I think rules that encourage story and meta-gaming can (not always depends on the rules) make the game better.

I can only speak for myself and my group but we used to be heavy simulationist and i personally was a big RM fan. Once I started playing more indie games where they encourage narrative control for all gaming participants and metagaming to benefit the game, the 'fun' and quality of my RPG experiences have increased manyfold.

While telling a story is not a game, what I consider great RPGs have RULES that encourage interesting scenes and stories. They have actually more gamist (have gaming rules) aspects than games that have the dichotomy of GM controls world/ players control characters.

Once we got out of what I consider the straightjacket of this dichotomy, the games got far better. As I said this is limited to my experience in gaming so i cant generalize for other people or groups.

You seem to be thinking (or at least saying) that games that share narrative power dont have rules. They have very strong rules and actually they tend to have less issues with groups needed to bring rules to have a good gaming experience because the rules are not trying to simulate reality or some asymptote to full character immersion.

This is not a post for one-true way of game thinking and I know people who really like heavy simulation and immersion will disagree about what constitutes a quality RPG but I do disagree with your overall theories that immersion is ultimate ideal of an RPG.

PS...that was more heavy handed than intended was meant for discussion and not argument.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

It was an honest question - I wasn't trying to pin anything on you!

I still don't really understand, though. What happens when I, a player, think something should happen in the world as a result of my actions and the DM disagrees? We can't consult the world to tell us what will happen. In my play experiences, that's been left up to the DM. I don't see that as anything but authority to say what happens.

 

[apoptosis]

It was an honest question - I wasn't trying to pin anything on you!

I still don't really understand, though. What happens when I, a player, think something should happen in the world as a result of my actions and the DM disagrees? We can't consult the world to tell us what will happen. In my play experiences, that's been left up to the DM. I don't see that as anything but authority to say what happens.

You pretty much have only three sources of authority (i think maybe i am wrong)

The rules, the GM or the players.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

I still suggest giving dictionary definition. Unnecessary jargon is just going to hurt your ability to convince others.

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

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

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.

Okay, puzzle blocking back together what I said to you about rule hierarchy it sounds like you agree with me. You're just saying that the way we do things at our table is the way we should do things first. And when things aren't that way, try and stick to that way as best as possible.

The thing that makes no sense is that you define such behavior in terms of rules and behaving out of character as behaving "normally", yet it's still the only thing you call "decide through appropriate social interaction". Isn't the default way to behave both in and out of game "appropriate social interaction"? I certainly don't need rules on how to act in character.

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 is where you have 34 years of RPGs proving you wrong. Saying all GMs are dictators at one level or another is just radical hogwash meant to cause normal RPG players to hate in response. You're not presenting an argument here, you're presenting an opinion that's meant to disrupt everything that represents basic, normal roleplaying and paint it as "bad play" and "dictatorial". You should definitely make this clear to everyone reading the thread before attempting to define a theory of "What roleplaying is". You've start off with your conclusion and one meant to turn 99% of roleplayers into having badwrongfun.

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.

So you're doing this in the name of "good management". I can't help but doubt you. It seems like your misunderstanding of how RPGs actually function and are fun is causing you to want to revolutionize everything that came before and call it "bad". Making everyone a "dictator" regading who gets what "authority" is the least fun-oriented game theory I've ever heard.

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

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.

Most people just call these things social niceties and get on their way. Again, I'm not forcing you to read my mind or am trying to read my players'. I said everything you posted after that point could be summed up as "What do the people playing really want?" And that the question could be very easily answered by simply asking the individuals involved. If you're so concerned about asking an inappropriate question, try asking in private. I stick with my assertion that psychoanalyzing your friends due to fear of bringing up certain topics isn't cool. What is appropriate and inappropriate is something most adults already know in given social situations.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Again, you're seeing things through that skewed prism. Authority has nothing to do with it. The world is created by both sides and remains true to itself more than anything. The players are playing because they want to pretend to be someone else. The DM runs the world so this can happen. There is no dictator here. No evil force making anyone do things they don't want to.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

You should define terms you make up before using them. Is high-level task resolution the previously mentioned and misnomered meta-game mechanics? Then read the previous arguments I've made on why those are inappropriate for games called RPGs.

Much like the spoon, there is no world.

If there is no world, then you must enjoy playing the rules huh? Like a game? That's not roleplaying in my book. I roleplay to play a character, not a collection of rules. Having a fully realized world with vibrant characters is the whole point. Arguing about "What's right" according to the rules is completely unnecessary and only happens under bad game systems. Rule-think is for games. In Character thinking is for RPGs.

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.

I'm not here to get into an argument about whether Objectivity is real or not. I've been saying GMs should operate in good faith to stay objective to the truths of the world when running it. I don't think the majority of potential players are going to have a problem with that. If you see that as psychoanalyzing the difference between desire and judgment, more power to you.

 

[howandwhy99]

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"

How well can one roleplay with no world to roleplay within? It's Let's Pretend all over again. How well can you roleplay without have a character? Is it even possible?

Of course there is a world and a physics to the world. And of course their are characters. The rules are not these things. The rules are altered to these things, not vice versa.

The only option you have up there which allows both for Players to roleplay and GMs to run the world in good faith is Option #2. That is Roleplaying to 99% of the gaming public. Trying to define it as something else, IMO, is an act of bad faith on others parts.

Call it Storygaming if you like, but claiming that "you can roleplay in between the game bits or narration" and still call these RPGs is disingenuous.

 

[pawsplay]

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?

If I'm understanding you, I think that's just what I would call "asking for a mechanical resolution." Different games have different rules for when you can ask for a roll.

 

[howandwhy99]

SNIP

That sounds like you prefer games other than RPGs. And I'm not suggesting immersion is somehow the be all and end all of RPGS either. What a strong wall between IC and OOC thinking allows is a breadth and depth of play you just cannot get from non-RPGs IMO.

Yes, there may be games for Hera and Zeus to play that are very, very complicated and require all kinds of competition, but in the end these two (i.e. the Players, not characters) are the ones making the decisions. Whether they flip a coin or not is secondary. They are decisively not the mortals they are toying with. Nor do they "take their roles" when narrating Fate. This kind of game need no rules to decide who gets to be "The Hand of God". IMO those are whatever table rules agreed upon so arguments don't arise for who has "The Power" each time. You could feasibly do it round robin.

Maybe it's this idea of "rules easing social expectations " for why folks think RPGs need OOC rules. You can have those in character too you know. Hargor is the mapper. Yulmod and Thek scout ahead without light. Etc. Solving social problems IC is a huge part of the game. It's called Team Building.

 

[apoptosis]

How well can one roleplay with no world to roleplay within? It's Let's Pretend all over again. How well can you roleplay without have a character? Is it even possible?

Of course there is a world and a physics to the world. And of course their are characters. The rules are not these things. The rules are altered to these things, not vice versa.

The only option you have up there which allows both for Players to roleplay and GMs to run the world in good faith is Option #2. That is Roleplaying to 99% of the gaming public. Trying to define it as something else, IMO, is an act of bad faith on others parts.

Call it Storygaming if you like, but claiming that "you can roleplay in between the game bits or narration" and still call these RPGs is disingenuous.

Option 2 actually doesnt really exist.

I don't know of one game that says what the rate of fire spreading is, how much fuel is required for the building to burn down vs getting scorched a little, how much fire is required, what is the chance that the building will actually go up in flames versus just petering out and doing smoke damage. What is the chance that it will burn if it has recently rained or if someone washed it yesterday and if so how much water was applied and how is this represented in chances that the building will burn down. How much will nearby wind increase/decrease the chance that the entire building will burn down (not to mention someone/something had to determine if it rained yesterday or what the wind speed is presently).

This is generally just determined by some authoritative power. Traditionally it has been the GM's area; they controlled all those factors and the player just determined whether they succeeded in their firebuilding skill, or if there is no firebuilding skill they just said they built a fire. The rest is all the GMs authority (or fiat).

Newer games have rules that allow the player to have some power in determing outcomes. I spend a drama point, or the result of my successful roll allows me the player to decide "the building burns down."

These are indeed roleplaying games but with shared narrative control. Actually the newer games have more rules (game) associated with outcome than the older style as there are rules to govern narrative control while in the other version it is just GM controls everything.

Not saying the newer games are better or worse but they are games and they do involve who controls the narrative.