Theory: Coming to the Table

[howandwhy99]

I'm pretty sure howandwhy99 is claiming that worlds spring into existence at the behest of the players, and thereafter have their own existence which no one can reasonably disagree about. Seemingly, the world either has elves in the Dread Woods or it doesn't, and people are just supposed to realize this is true. Without any decision-making process. No one is allowed to force their opinion on each other, but no one is allowed to just do whatever they want, either. Everyone just magically agrees what is true.

There's no need to speak as if I'm not in the room.

Worlds don't just spring into being it takes work on the DMs side to help construct the world the Players and PCs don't know.

Staying true to that construction so players can have an understandable, consistent, playable world (again) is why there are mechanics in the first place.

What exists in the world is learned experientially by the players (ideally) and determined by GM judgment based up on PC actions and backgrounds and assistance and everything that came before.

No one is forcing their opinion on you when you play. Or keeping you from playing in the manner you wish. It's a group activity though, so if you are deliberately acting to not get along, yeah the game is going to stop to address your issue.

You seem to not be understanding me at all. RPGs are not dictatorships to be "brought down". I think the idea is poisoning your thinking. And probably your enjoyment of the game.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think you're understanding. No one is advocating a dictatorship.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't think you're understanding. No one is advocating a dictatorship.

I don't think anybody wants to, but we have very different beliefs on whether traditional games are dictatorial or not, if i'm understanding you correctly. My understanding of your position is that in traditional games GMs have total authority and players don't. Is that the narrative authority? The only recourse players have in such a situation is to revolt and leave the game. If this is true to your position, this sounds like a dictatorship.

I'm saying traditional games are not dictatorships. I am saying RPGs are what everyone has known them to be since the beginning. Am I advocating dictatorship then?

To think GMs are somehow gods with the power to do anything and players are not is really a messed up, inaccurate idea about what RPGs have always been. As I've previously noted in this thread.

 

[Mallus]

Is high-level task resolution the previously mentioned and misnomered meta-game mechanics?

They can be, yes.

Then read the previous arguments I've made on why those are inappropriate for games called RPGs.

But you didn't really make any arguments, just statements of preference for a certain kind of play rooted in a certain kind of simulation.

I roleplay to play a character, not a collection of rules.

So do I. You misinterpreted my quip.

Let me try this again; the maintenance of a consistent gameworld is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. A DM creates a play environment that facilitates the telling and playing out of fantasy adventure stories. That's his or her imperative. Having the 'world' respond accordingly is subordinate to that goal. Is that clear? Forgive me, I've been drinking wine at a charity event all evening...

Rule-think is for games. In Character thinking is for RPGs.

Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. An RPG player can be engaged by both simultaneously, and many do.

I've been saying GMs should operate in good faith to stay objective to the truths of the world when running it.

The objective truths about my campaign worlds is that they exist to facilitate the creation of entertaining fantasy narratives. To that end I often, as DM, dispense narration rights to the players. All I can say is that works swimmingly. And, yes, it's a still a game. Hint: you didn't successfully identify the difference between RPG's and pure collaborative storytelling...

 

[pawsplay]

My understanding of your position is that in traditional games GMs have total authority and players don't. Is that the narrative authority? The only recourse players have in such a situation is to revolt and leave the game. If this is true to your position, this sounds like a dictatorship.

That's not a dictatorship. It is an objective, verifiable fact that in traditional games, if there is a disagreement about the world, the GM wins; if there is a disagreement about the resolution of an action, the GM wins. It's not a dictatorship, that is how the game is structured. It's not a dictatorship any more than a symphony orchestra is a dictatorship led by the conductor. That's not an encouragement to abuse authority. But yes, the authority is there for the GM to abuse, if they choose to. Just as the players can use their PCs to perform contrary actions and destroy the game, if they choose. In a traditional game, players submit to the GM's authority as far as the world goes and as far as the rules go, and the GM, with some limitations, must accept the player's authority over their own character's actions.

So, yes, it is true that the only recourse the playes have is to revolt. It is no different than if we sit down to play Monopoly and I refuse to buy properties or do anything but circle the board; you can't make me. All you can do is say, "This game is no longer to my liking." But if decide I can move any number of spaces I choose, you can rightly say, "That's against the rules we agreed to."

That is a far, far thing from total authority. The GM in a traditional game has a job to do and the authority to do it. They know exactly how far their authority extends: as far as they can convince other people to join their game. I've played in many, many traditional games and I know exactly how they work. Except for some particulars, most of the games I run are traditional games, and most of the ones I've played in are traditional games, too.

A traditional game includes input from the players. But a traditional game states, with no uncertainty, that the GM is the final arbiter of what is true.

 

[howandwhy99]

But you didn't really make any arguments, just statements of preference for a certain kind of play rooted in a certain kind of simulation.

Honestly, I've made arguments throughout this thread on why my "preference" as you put it is what RPGs are. There are other games that are very poor when played as RPGs, but to see my arguments you need to read my other posts here. I'm not going to repost them all again.

Let me try this again; the maintenance of a consistent gameworld is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. A DM creates a play environment that facilitates the telling and playing out of fantasy adventure stories. That's his or her imperative. Having the 'world' respond accordingly is subordinate to that goal. Is that clear? Forgive me, I've been drinking wine at a charity event all evening...

See, this is our main disagreement. You're talking about storytelling. I'm talking about roleplaying. That's why I play roleplaying games and you play storytelling games. There's a difference. Just because I can relate the events of what happened afterward doesn't mean we play storygames. Nor, because your players on occasion talk in character, are your games RPGs. There is a slight blend, but a definite difference in priority. You might as well call Monopoly an RPG because you can pretend to be an old shoe buying hotels while playing it.

Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. An RPG player can be engaged by both simultaneously, and many do.

You're right. A rule like gravity exists in game I don't have to think OOC to understand "things fall when I drop them". Mechanics on the other hand are OOC.

The objective truths about my campaign worlds is that they exist to facilitate the creation of entertaining fantasy narratives. To that end I often, as DM, dispense narration rights to the players. All I can say is that works swimmingly. And, yes, it's a still a game. Hint: you didn't successfully identify the difference between RPG's and pure collaborative storytelling...

Hint: I just did above.

Here's a recap from another post for you too:

The games you are describing are at best minimally roleplaying games. They have roleplaying secondary to their main goal. That would be narration as my guess. It's the Mt. Olympus thing again. You're not your character, so no need to think about what your character wants. These may be games. And they may require narration. But neither aspects as you've defined them require roleplaying or winning or losing through roleplay. Those are the two essential elements for being an RPG.

 

[pawsplay]

howandwhy99,

Although no definition has been named as definitive for this discussion, here is where I am coming from, taken from my original theory post.

A definition of a role-playing game:
1. Narrative Principle: A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events.
2. Action Resolution: Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules.
3. Immersive Persona: At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions "as if" that character.
4. Freedom Principle: Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game.


There is nothing there that precludes either Dungeons & Dragons or Sorcerer, or Feng Shui or whatever. It does technically rule out Capes and the Baron Munchausen Role-playing Game, which both qualify as storytelling games by my definitions, but they are close enough that much of the discussion still applies.

There is nothing precluding a player from also being a narrator. In fact, every game has some player narration. If I say, "Greetings traveler, how fare you?" I am narrating the dialog my character says. I might be wrong! I might suddenly discover that I am cursed or in a zone of silence or have laryngitis or whatever. But I am proposing a narrative event.

 

[LostSoul]

Is this helping you at all. This seems like pretty basic stuff for RPGs.

Yeah. I'm trying to square this with why you don't think "Narrative Resolution" has no place in RPGs.

It sounds to me like you think authorial privilege is only used when creating the world, and that's done before play.

Is this true when the PCs "wander off the map," so to speak?

The DM is consulting the world as established to come up with a world-fitting location off the map - but, at the moment of play, he is not using his own authority to author something in the game. It is the shared understanding of the world among the group that informs his decision.

 

[Mallus]

You're talking about storytelling. I'm talking about roleplaying. That's why I play roleplaying games and you play storytelling games. There's a difference.

I admit to being curious as to how you can make such definitive statements about my campaigns. Are you secretly one of my players?

Nor, because your players on occasion talk in character, are your games RPGs.

I think my players would be quite shocked to learn that the act of defining and playing their characters for these four years has somehow not amounted to them playing a roleplaying game. Quelle horror!

Hint: I just did above.

Badly.

Try this on for size: roleplaying games differ from collaborative storyteller in that the former focuses on the one set of participants overcoming a series of challenges while the latter concerns itself only creation of an entertaining narrative. No matter the resolution system used, RPG's are clearly games in that they present conflicts with a set victory conditions that must be met, though these are often embedded in narration that resembles pure storytelling.

 

[howandwhy99]

A traditional game includes input from the players. But a traditional game states, with no uncertainty, that the GM is the final arbiter of what is true.

You seem to have a good grasp of what RPGs are all about, but fail to see that the world itself is the final authority on how things operate within it. The rules are not, the players are not, the GM is not. They are constructing a world to play in and that world encapsulates the actions of those who play the game. That first, and foremost, includes the GM. The GM is simply not the final arbiter as you so explicitly state. The world is. A GM who acts in bad faith within that world has no right to be GMing.

It's like a player who deliberately goes out of his or her way to ruin the game for others by constantly trying to dictate the reality of the world. They aren't even bothering to roleplay anymore. And they really aren't following the spirit of the game: roleplaying.

In each case it's best to stop, talk it over, and see if things can move ahead appropriately. Nothing so trite as "game rules" are needed to tell my friends and I how to behave appropriately during game. That's what's messed up in your hierarchy of resolutions too. We can roleplay harmoniously without rules on how to not be jerks to one another.

The idea that the ability to have a roleplaying experience is suboptimal because of the ability of human beings to act cruelly is just crazy in my opinion. There is no need to bring authority over the game world right into play. It only serves to disrupt everything and destroy the spirit of play. Why even bother?