Theory: Coming to the Table

[howandwhy99]

No, what is least desirable is when the game doesn't give you a clear, useful choice within the system. Some conventional resolutions are not only preferable, but necessary; for instance, deciding when and where the adventure begins.

Again, we game the world, not a system. The system is secondary and unnecessary except as an assistant to the DM. Playing in character means pretending to be what I like to call a "person". These "persons" act like you or I. They resolve problems in game just like you or I would.

How the world operates in respect to those actions is really not a "system" at all. I don't need a system to know that falling in water makes my PC wet.

 

[pemerton]

A player writing background is prepping for the game.

<snip>

Are you ceasing to act in character? If so, then yes. This is stopping the game to tell the DM you've created more prepwork for him to incorporate into his or her own. That's kind of a rude thing to do in the middle of a game. Especially if you're using it to your advantage unfairly. "Hey! I'm actually the owner of all these jewels, by the way!" That's bad character play as I brought up in a previous post. Can a good GM roll with it? Sure, but you're putting them on the spot.

There are many games in which what you call "rude" or "bad character play" is an integral part of the action resolution mechanics. Now you may prefer not to call these games RPGs, but most players of them would call them RPGs, and they market themselves as RPGs, and they are sold in shops in the RPG section.

And if more interesting means I get to say, "I swing my sword and a meteor falls on him", then count me out. The whole point is to play a character I can recognize as a real person. Personally, I cannot call down meteors on people in real life. Magic? Sure, but magic works for a reason. Otherwise it's just pretty worthless.

This is a complete red herring. It is no part of a game like HeroWars that sword swings arbitrarily and at a player's whim bring down meteor showers.

Why even bother playing a game where the GM determines an 18 is needed to climb for Bobby, but a 14 for Susie because she has pretty blonde hair? That is what makes no sense, and why RPGs were created in the first place.

This is another red herring. It is no part of a game like D&D that the GM is allowed to vary the parameters of a challenge based on his or her personal affection for a particular player. But it does not follow from any requirement of impartiality, or of consistency with what has gone before, that the world dictates the difficulty of any challenge. This has to be decided, and the typical decision-maker in D&D play is the GM.

Suppose the GM writes down the details of the challenge ahead of time, and then describes that to the players. Or suppose the GM (who, like me, does not have much prep time outside of sessions) makes up the details as s/he goes along. What difference does it make? Either way the GM used his or her authority to dictate a certain state of the world. This is what I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread with whom you are arguing means when they talk about the GM exercising narrative authority.

narration doesn't exist in roleplaying games. It bothers me because the whole of it is a conceit devised by a small cadre of RPG-hating theorist in a small corner of the RPG community with the intention to denigrate everything that actually IS an RPG as "incoherent". And it's players as brain damaged.

A couple of online dictionaries give the following meanings for "narration": "an account", "a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events". "Narration" can also be used to refer to the act of producing such an account or such a message.

When the GM is describing the gameworld to the players, s/he is giving an account of certain events or occurences (eg "It is raining", "In the distance a range of mountains is visible"). When the player's describe their PC's actions they are also giving an account of certain events or occurences (eg "I reach for a handhold on the wall", "I swing my sword at the orc".)

I don't think that it's very controversial to describe this sort of language, or the act of producing it, as narration. And RPGing is full of such activity. In my experience, one of the first things that a non-RPGer notices when s/he stumbles onto an RPG session (after the dice and paper) is that the game seems to consist mostly of giving accounts of various imaginary events and occurences.

 

[howandwhy99]

There are many games in which what you call "rude" or "bad character play" is an integral part of the action resolution mechanics. Now you may prefer not to call these games RPGs, but most players of them would call them RPGs, and they market themselves as RPGs, and they are sold in shops in the RPG section

I can't stop bad RPG designers from publishing games. That's been occurring since RPGs began.

This is a complete red herring. It is no part of a game like HeroWars that sword swings arbitrarily and at a player's whim bring down meteor showers.

I was referring to Lanefan's experience in one of his indie games. I thought a direct reference to a players actual play might prove the point better.

This is another red herring. It is no part of a game like D&D that the GM is allowed to vary the parameters of a challenge based on his or her personal affection for a particular player. But it does not follow from any requirement of impartiality, or of consistency with what has gone before, that the world dictates the difficulty of any challenge. This has to be decided, and the typical decision-maker in D&D play is the GM.

Suppose the GM writes down the details of the challenge ahead of time, and then describes that to the players. Or suppose the GM (who, like me, does not have much prep time outside of sessions) makes up the details as s/he goes along. What difference does it make? Either way the GM used his or her authority to dictate a certain state of the world. This is what I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread with whom you are arguing means when they talk about the GM exercising narrative authority.

And as I've said, that's poor DMing. The GM is there to extrapolate from the world, not vice versa. If he gets caught off guard, has to wing it, it's understandable, but the point is to try and avoid that kind of play.

A couple of online dictionaries give the following meanings for "narration": "an account", "a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events". "Narration" can also be used to refer to the act of producing such an account or such a message.

When the GM is describing the gameworld to the players, s/he is giving an account of certain events or occurences (eg "It is raining", "In the distance a range of mountains is visible"). When the player's describe their PC's actions they are also giving an account of certain events or occurences (eg "I reach for a handhold on the wall", "I swing my sword at the orc".)

I don't think that it's very controversial to describe this sort of language, or the act of producing it, as narration. And RPGing is full of such activity. In my experience, one of the first things that a non-RPGer notices when s/he stumbles onto an RPG session (after the dice and paper) is that the game seems to consist mostly of giving accounts of various imaginary events and occurences.

As I posted to Mallus above, if you don't want to use the Forge thinking or the definition used at the beginning of this thread, then a DM extrapolating what the world is and answering the players queries with such info may as well be called Narration. That isn't authority though. He isn't just making that stuff up. He has to follow what the world is.

Saying GMs have narrative authority is too often used to create bad games that have little to do with roleplaying and more with the narrating of events like a story. To use the word as you've defined it, GMs don't narrate stories, they narrate the description of the world the PCs are asking to see. PCs don't narrate their actions, they play their characters. Normally its just easiest to speak in character. If your character acts, you could call that narration, but it isn't because I decided this is what my character is. My character is a part of the world and I can't change that. I have to follow what is allows.

Narration is a term redefined by the Forge, so if I seem a little leery to use a term made into jargon by the same philosophy so many are spouting here, please forgive me. I'd like to think I could use the term without being misunderstood, but I'm just as likely to be considered in agreement with other parts of this headwhacked theory that allows for such poorly designed games.

 

[howandwhy99]

double post

 

[pawsplay]

My character is a part of the world and I can't change that.

This is, for a lack of a better phrasing, an extreme minority position. I'm not going to agree that an imaginary world has an independent reality, and I don't think anyone else in this thread is, either. Further, you yourself described winging it as "bad GMing," but it is nonetheless, GMing. it wouldn't be possible if the GM didn't have the narrative authority to GM in such a "bad" manner.

A world with a compelling sense of reality is an ideal, and I think we all agree that's a worthy goal of the immersion part of gaming. But it doesn't happen by itself. Creating that imaginary world takes work, and it is an ongoing process.

 

[LostSoul]

That'd be funny LostSoul if there weren't already instances in this thread of bad game design where players do just that. Like the previous "throwing enemies overboard and declaring there are demonsharks there who might eat him."

Well, that was my example of something that I might have done in an actual game. I didn't, though, because TSoY doesn't have any mechanic where I can create facts about the gameworld on the fly. It just doesn't work like that.

So I couldn't declare that demonsharks were in the water, or that they would eat him. I could have expected it - but I would have wrong, since the GM said (later on) that the magical fancy-pants guys who ran the city kept the demonsharks out of their waters.

In other words, the world spoke up.

Here's an interesting blog post about "fictional positioning": http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/fictional-positioning-101/ That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "the world spoke up."

 

[pawsplay]

Okay, I'm going to set aside for now howandwhy99's definition of roleplaying and the discussion whether or not that is a traditional game. I feel it would be a useful workout for me try to formulate their game, and they can reality check my interpretation if they feel like it.

Basically, as I see it, in howandwhy99's ideal game, narrative resolution is the vastly superior method of resolution. Other forms may be preferable, depending on the situation, but the final judgment is whether a given action makes sense within a narrative standpoint, especially in terms of fidelity to the world and the rules of that imaginary universe.

Narration of the PCs actions is almost purely in the hands of the players, whereas narration of the world rests almost purely in the hands of the GM. Even mechanical resolutions can be suspended by the GM for narrative purposes. However, a part of that narration is reserved for the group as a whole. The group consensus is holds ultimate narrative control over whether PC actions are consistent with the world and whether the GM's narration is consistent with the world. The right to judge fidelity to the imagined world does not rest in any individual player.

The social rules of the group support this. The group meet as equals, and an expectation of participating in the group is faithfulness to the narrative, especially the coherency of the world and the logical consequences of events within that world. A very strong metagame goal, at least for howandwhy99, is embracing the "as if."

The default style assumes a very strong second-person viewpoint for the players ("you").

In the decision-making mode, the movement across the envelope of experience is tightly controlled. That is, players inject as much creative power as possible into the creation of animated, life-like characters, and as little as possible of any extraneous metagame concerns. In turn, movement from game to reality is tightly controlled, with the players being allowed to accept only narrative, game-reality based inputs from the characters and as much as possible ignoring mechanical factors or out-of-game social factors. Even the GM is beholden to intepret information from the created world faithfully, selecting events that derive from the coherent settng and player choices, rather than their own agenda or blindly following game mechanics.

 

[howandwhy99]

My character is a part of the world and I can't change that.

This is, for a lack of a better phrasing, an extreme minority position. I'm not going to agree that an imaginary world has an independent reality, and I don't think anyone else in this thread is, either. Further, you yourself described winging it as "bad GMing," but it is nonetheless, GMing. it wouldn't be possible if the GM didn't have the narrative authority to GM in such a "bad" manner.

A world with a compelling sense of reality is an ideal, and I think we all agree that's a worthy goal of the immersion part of gaming. But it doesn't happen by itself. Creating that imaginary world takes work, and it is an ongoing process.

I think if you could could ask the majority of the roleplaying public whether or not they could just change the world if they didn't like how it worked during play, they would tell you no. My position is the same as the vast majority of RPGers. No one I know who plays RPGs think they say at the table, "no, I DID hit the ogre. The dice are wrong, this world sucks!" and be right.

And I'm not saying imaginary worlds exist without humans to conceive them. I'm saying a fictional conception doesn't disappear because we don't like it. It has it's own reality in our heads. We can rely on that reality to make decisions. As if the Law were not written in books, but memorized like in an oral community.

A GM has descriptive "authority" to make stuff up when the players head off anything not already constructed. But the final authority on whether that stuff is true or not is the world that exists already. Not the GM.

And yes, an ongoing reality of the world does take work. That happens out of game. And by all parties involved.

 

[howandwhy99]

Well, that was my example of something that I might have done in an actual game. I didn't, though, because TSoY doesn't have any mechanic where I can create facts about the gameworld on the fly. It just doesn't work like that.

So I couldn't declare that demonsharks were in the water, or that they would eat him. I could have expected it - but I would have wrong, since the GM said (later on) that the magical fancy-pants guys who ran the city kept the demonsharks out of their waters.

In other words, the world spoke up.

Here's an interesting blog post about "fictional positioning": http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/fictional-positioning-101/ That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "the world spoke up."

Thanks for pointing out that sometimes TSOY does require you to roleplay vs. pretend to be God. I've seen its' rules though and I believe it has aspects which do require stopping roleplay to alter the world.

The "fictional positioning" of the world seems to be another jargon creating article on making sure the world makes sense and operates appropriately at the table. The article is basically trying to define this sensibility as only one aspect of an RPG world, so it can then allow for games where players don't roleplay to still be called RPGs.

I can explain further on this if you don't understand.

 

[howandwhy99]

Okay, I'm going to set aside for now howandwhy99's definition of roleplaying and the discussion whether or not that is a traditional game. I feel it would be a useful workout for me try to formulate their game, and they can reality check my interpretation if they feel like it.

That's fine. I appreciate you letting me post in your thread. As you see posting such contentious positions on an RPG board praising D&D, a game that the cult-like theory specifically calls badwrongfun, is going to get you called out.

Basically, as I see it, in howandwhy99's ideal game, narrative resolution is the vastly superior method of resolution. Other forms may be preferable, depending on the situation, but the final judgment is whether a given action makes sense within a narrative standpoint, especially in terms of fidelity to the world and the rules of that imaginary universe.

Again, this is the reason the word "narrative" is so inappropriate in this discussion Anyone here could mistake what you are saying there as not "description of the world", but instead as "the telling of a story". As if somehow "narrating" my life is equivalent to living my life. I've told you before, narrating occurs after the fact, in both life and roleplaying (living as if I were another person). And yes, what occurs has to make sense in the world or it's just bad roleplay. Who on earth disagrees with that?

Narration of the PCs actions is almost purely in the hands of the players, whereas narration of the world rests almost purely in the hands of the GM. Even mechanical resolutions can be suspended by the GM for narrative purposes. However, a part of that narration is reserved for the group as a whole. The group consensus is holds ultimate narrative control over whether PC actions are consistent with the world and whether the GM's narration is consistent with the world. The right to judge fidelity to the imagined world does not rest in any individual player.

Again, the word "narrate" as you use it here is horribly ambiguous with double meaning, most of which are inappropriate to discussing RPGs. I am not "narrating" my PC. I am roleplaying it. I may describe how I behave, but it's better if I actually behave that way. You are using the word inaccurately here as roleplaying is not the relation of events. Roleplaying (like living life) is not a relation of detail to other people. That's one of the major errors of this whole theory.

A GM may describe the results of actions taken in the world. Yes, the word "narrate" can mean relating these descriptions. But narration is not roleplaying. Nor is it the GM interpreting the correct repercussions of the world to the PCs' actions. It's multiple definitions are confusing this entire discussion and I can only guess it was deliberately designed to do just that by the theory's author. Narration is not roleplaying. Nor is it GMing the game. The only way it really becomes useful in terms of RPGs is in the limited, single definition of "the relating of details to another". Let's just use the world "describe" for that, okay? It's far more accurate and less confusing to the reader.

The social rules of the group support this. The group meet as equals, and an expectation of participating in the group is faithfulness to the narrative, especially the coherency of the world and the logical consequences of events within that world. A very strong metagame goal, at least for howandwhy99, is embracing the "as if."

Here, the word narrative is supposed to be "world". I'm not even sure why you used it here other than to overly drive the point home that it is being used time and time inappropriately.

The default style assumes a very strong second-person viewpoint for the players ("you").

In the decision-making mode, the movement across the envelope of experience is tightly controlled. That is, players inject as much creative power as possible into the creation of animated, life-like characters, and as little as possible of any extraneous metagame concerns. In turn, movement from game to reality is tightly controlled, with the players being allowed to accept only narrative, game-reality based inputs from the characters and as much as possible ignoring mechanical factors or out-of-game social factors. Even the GM is beholden to intepret information from the created world faithfully, selecting events that derive from the coherent settng and player choices, rather than their own agenda or blindly following game mechanics.

Basically, people playing characters should behave as if those characters actually were them, real people. Rather than Gods who get to change the world at their whim. That's why it's called role-playing and not that God-playing game.

Again, this isn't a minority position. It's the socially agreed upon definition of roleplaying in our world. I act like another person. That's it. Making the game about something other than roleplaying means the game isn't an RPG. That's not so hard to understand.