Theory: Coming to the Table

[pawsplay]

In each case it's best to stop, talk it over, and see if things can move ahead appropriately.

That is itself a set of rules. The rule is, "If there is some conflict over what is occuring in the game, we will stop, talk it over, and see if things can move ahead appropriately." That is a conventional resolution.

The world is.

We create the world. As it is a consensual reality, how can it possibly have existence outside what the participants choose?

 

[howandwhy99]

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 you go.

#1. Narrative has no place there either. Or are you taking this to mean narration occurs everyday all day through normal life? Meaning I could narrate my day to you if I wanted to. Narration is also about stuff that happened in the past. Like telling game stories to my buddy afterward.

#2. There is not such thing as critical game decisions. Decisions are decisions. What make them critical is how important they are to the characters. Characters can be played by more than one person, but no one is going to collaboratively choose what I say to the Demon Lord. My PC chooses.

#3. This is a roleplaying game. The people who are playing the game are doing this. Those who aren't, aren't.

#4. This would be the GMs role.

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.

Talking in character is now narration? I think you've gone too far into what counts as the Narrator role. I don't think their is one personally. This is a character role. If every player gets to also be a GM or even if it's some of the players / GMs, then you get the problem with DMPCs. Some how you are supposed to be able to discern the answer to the riddle even though you made it up yourself. It's completely harmful to roleplaying and painfully difficult to keep OOC separate from IC. Staying IC the whole time is simply easier on everyone.

 

[apoptosis]

So what have RPGers been doing these many decades? Kidding themselves?

SNIP

Again, this is determined by the world. There is no such thing as GM authority or Player authority. I've explained in the above two posts.

These are very shoddy game mechanics when used in an RPG. They force players to think out of character and "game the system". They are antithetical to roleplaying because they cannot be used while roleplaying.

As I've said before neither the Players nor GM have authority. If this is the same as narrative control, then the same holds true. If you are saying, "who gets to determine what the PCs do?" That's easy. Each PC decides for his or her self. You act in character. Sometimes its hard (as anyone reading here can attest as frequent roleplayers), because PCs don't always want to do what we the players want to when playing the game.

I again actually disagree with most of what you just said.

First off the World is actually the result of the "official" rules of the system, GM authority and player authority. By itself it does not exist. It cannot react, it cannot do anything. It is just a shared imagination space.

For all intents and purposes it does not exist except as the result of GM authority, Player authority or the rules system. To me this seem very obvious but there must be some disconnect between us.

If I as a player decide to burn down a building. What tells me whether the house burns down and whether some nearby buildings also burn down.

Either there are detailed rules sets that say if you roll a die using skilll A and equipment B and get this number a building of size X of material Y will burn down. Maybe the rules are so detailed they can say that other buildings within Z distance made of material Y have a % chance of also burning down.

Very few games have this level of granularity with the rules.

So what are the other options to decide what happens.

The GM says. That sounds reasonable based on my experience so he says that putting a torch to the building will burn it down. This is GM authority.

The Player could say well I want to burn down this building and if I make this roll (luck roll doesnt matter) or spend a drama point etc. I get to say whether the building burns down and whether other nearby buildings burn down.

The WORLD doesnt get a say in the matter it is a product of the above three entities. The world is not real, it does not exist. It is the end result of the rules, GM and players narrative control.

Now many times GMs and Players base the world on our world and then add some additional details (say magic). But that is because it is easiest to do it that way as it puts all players on the same page. But manytimes the world due to even system rules does not work like our world (say falling damage) or for instance. Sometimes the ruleset is overridden by GM (or player authority).

You will have to explain how the world can do or react or determine anything cuz right now I just dont see it.

 

[howandwhy99]

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?

A lot of the DMs job is ensuring this can't happen. But world creation informed by what was nearby and happening at the time said wandering occurred can help a GM wing it until more solid firmament is under the PCs boots again. 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.

I think you are confusing the difference between world content and world functioning. If I put a new monster in the world called a Magyuar, I make sure it fits into the world as designed so far. I don't change the world to fit it. To do so would invalidate everything the players and their characters know about the world regarding my changes.

If my players wrote that into their background, I would think up some solid mechanics to keep the creature functioning consistently and as described. A GM plays the world as constructed and fills in gaps as needed to allow for seamless play (ideally)

What are changes and what is "playing the world" you might ask? Well, the world operates as best like a world would as we discussed earlier and NPCs are played in character. The changes to the world are primarily due to PC actions, but that's only because I'm making only enough of it to keep wherever they are full and interesting.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

To be more precise, the former is done in character (aka roleplayed) and other can be roleplayed or not as creating a narrative is done by Hollywood screenwriters as often as not too. Roleplaying is secondary, if involved at all. (I can imagine hollywood screenwriters pretending to be Brad Pitt right now )

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.

Victory conditions are set in character. No where else.

 

[howandwhy99]

That is itself a set of rules. The rule is, "If there is some conflict over what is occuring in the game, we will stop, talk it over, and see if things can move ahead appropriately." That is a conventional resolution.

Since when do roleplaying games get to have rules about how my friends and I should resolve our differences? That is screwy to me. We can solve our real life problems without RPG author assistance. Thanks anyways.

Things that happen outside of the game should be resolved separately from it, don't you think?

We create the world. As it is a consensual reality, how can it possibly have existence outside what the participants choose?

Via roleplaying. It is a thing unto itself anyone's direct control. Like an author writing a story. The story exists outside the author. And if he or she doesn't stay true to it, it ends up being lousy.

 

[apoptosis]

So according to you is the GM not playing a roleplaying game.

He is doing many narrativist activities. He is doing a lot of things that are not immersing himself into a character.

I have to admit I find your thoughts on roleplaying so alien that it is taking me awhile to try and see things from your perspective.

I am not the only one so I am guessing that there is a disconnect between you and several of us.

You seem to be stuck in the idea that all players get to do is control their characters and if they do anything else that it is not roleplaying.

I find that kind of ridiculous. Players (like the GM) can both play a character, involve themselves in the story from a authorial position completely separate from their character as well. The GM is having to do this all the time. Heck there are games where there is no GM, everyone is playing a character and there are tons of rules. Every player has to also step outside of character to help move the game and story along. How is this not an RPG.

Frankly all RPGs require some level of metagaming, the idea that this is necessarily bad are honestly ideas about gaming that I thought went away in the 80s. I admit I do find it odd that this is what you consider all RPGs to be about (and this is coming from someone whose favorite game is probably Rolemaster the most unwieldy simulationist heavy nonnarrativist game you can play)

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I beg to differ. The "free and clear phase", to stick with that term, happens whenever a party has finished an adventure or storyline, divided its treasury, done its training, and is deciding *in character* what to do next.

Sometimes, one or more characters have something specific they want to do; be it something arising from an earlier story, a desire to explore a part of the world they haven't seen, or whatever.

Other times, the DM might have something cooked up behind the scenes that the characters will eventually run into no matter where they go.

Yet other times, the players might go out of character, turn to the DM, and ask "do you have anything planned for us?".

As for authority...to me, saying that authority rests in "the world" is the same as saying it rests in "the DM", as the DM creates the world. The judge-courtroom angle holds no water, as the judge did not create the laws. The DM, however, did create the world...and is also free to amend the written rules as she sees fit as to how things work within it. A judge can't change the law on a whim.

And as for who does the narrating (and some must be done, or there is no story at all; and by definition there must be some story unless the characters have merely Done Nothing) there are two answers. On a broad scale, most of it falls to the DM via deciding what the greater world does and how such affects the characters - if at all. On a small scale, however, more of it falls to the players/characters via the in-the-moment decisions they make (which quest do we undertake? Which hall do we go down? Do we free the slaves or kill them? Etc.) And the reverse is also true: on a broad scale, the characters often find themselves reacting to the world, while on a small scale the DM is often reacting to the characters/players.

Lanefan

 

[apoptosis]

How and Why

Sorry if I sound frustrated, I am really trying to understand your perspective.

 

[howandwhy99]

I again actually disagree with most of what you just said.

First off the World is actually the result of the "official" rules of the system, GM authority and player authority. By itself it does not exist. It cannot react, it cannot do anything. It is just a shared imagination space.

You've got it backwards. The world dictates the rules, not vice versa. There is no "official" ruleset. Rules are completely secondary and GMs can take or discard them as desired.

For all intents and purposes it does not exist except as the result of GM authority, Player authority or the rules system. To me this seem very obvious but there must be some disconnect between us.

If I as a player decide to burn down a building. What tells me whether the house burns down and whether some nearby buildings also burn down.

The GM adjudicates based upon the design of the world. Like a judge making decisions based upon the Law.

Either there are detailed rules sets that say if you roll a die using skilll A and equipment B and get this number a building of size X of material Y will burn down. Maybe the rules are so detailed they can say that other buildings within Z distance made of material Y have a % chance of also burning down.

GMs prerogative here as long as the end results are true to the world.

Very few games have this level of granularity with the rules.

As I said in my previous posts, such specificity is completely unnecessary unless the PCs are delving into it. Combat can be a coin flip if that is the degree of focus on that element of the game. (probably best to decide that one beforehand as it's so popular tho)

So what are the other options to decide what happens.

The GM says. That sounds reasonable based on my experience so he says that putting a torch to the building will burn it down. This is GM authority.

This is the GM operating according the authority of the world. Your GM's reasoned that buildings burn down to the ground when lit aflame. Are you telling me you'd disagree that buildings burn?

The Player could say well I want to burn down this building and if I make this roll (luck roll doesnt matter) or spend a drama point etc. I get to say whether the building burns down and whether other nearby buildings burn down.

That's completely ridiculous. Players play PCs, not Gods. What are you thinking?

The WORLD doesnt get a say in the matter it is a product of the above three entities. The world is not real, it does not exist. It is the end result of the rules, GM and players narrative control.

Again, the world is pre-constructed by every player of the game (including GM) as much as they wish beforehand. This stuff you are making up about the rules having some kind of authority is just bunk. Please, please tell me. Why on earth would anyone choose to allow rules to dictate their "imagined space" as you call it? Why doesn't the desired imagined space always dictate to the rules? Lack of desire to portray the world accurately? I don't honestly know.

Now many times GMs and Players base the world on our world and then add some additional details (say magic). But that is because it is easiest to do it that way as it puts all players on the same page. But many times the world due to even system rules does not work like our world (say falling damage) or for instance. Sometimes the ruleset is overridden by GM (or player authority).

You will have to explain how the world can do or react or determine anything cuz right now I just dont see it.

The world, like the law, doesn't "do or react" it uses others to act on it's behalf. When they do the law/world can gives them the authority to do so. If your ruleset isn't accurately portraying the world you've created to the degree your players enjoy, toss those rules and use different ones. There are plenty out there. Overriding poor functioning rules is not just an authority given to the GM by the world, it's a obligation.