Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7333886" data-attributes="member: 42582">No. I didn't say that. I said that my account of the "fundamental act" of RPGing has a limitation: it doesn't incorporate Gygaxian dungeoneering.That doesn't mean that Gygaxain dungeoneering is not RPGing. It means my account of the "fundamental act" has a limitation: there is an instance of RPGing of which my account is not true. However, given that the OP expressly asked its question about non-Gygaxian play, that limitation can be set aside. (And imperfect analogy: you can send people to the moon using Newtonian mechanics, even though you know they're not accurate for reasons give by Einstein and others, because you're not doing something where those limitations become significant.)This is just loose metaphor.I can (perhaps) look at things through your eyes (literally) if some complex bio/electronic rig was attached to your optic nerves and my brain. That would be weird, but if it's not possible that's only because the rig hasn't been invented yet.But I can't (in any literal sense) look at anything through the eyes of an imaginary person. That's metaphysically impossible. And all that such talk means is that I imagine what that person is seeing.And this is absolutely crucial to any sensible discussion about RPGing.The process, in the real world, whereby it turns out that I will or won't find a map in a study, is a terrificially complex causal one - assuming it's a map drawn on paper with ink, it depends upon (i) causal processes that generate plants and minerals; (ii) causal processes whereby humans turn those into paper and ink and a building with a study; (iii) causal processes whereby someone is socialised and educated into some grasp of what cartography is; (iv) causal processes whereby someone is socialised and educatedinto some grasp of what a stuy is; (v) causal proceses whereby a human draws a map; (vi) causal processes whereby a human builds a building with a study in it; (vi) causal processes whereby I come into being and end up in that study; (vii) causal processes (which could involve people, pigeons, the wind, errant letters falling out of a courier's basket, or any other vast range of things) whereby that map ends up in that study for some temporal period that overlaps with my presence there.The process, in the real world - which is where RPGing takes place - whereby it turns out that my PC will or won't find a map in a study, is overall more simple (though still complex): (i) social processes that bring a group of people together to engage in the collective activity of RPGing; (ii) those processes mentioned in (i) further leading to a consensus among the group that my PC is in a (collectively imagined) study; (iii) my forming the desire to delcare as an action that my PC searches the study; (iv) a continuation of the aformentioned social processes leading to a new concsensus that my PC is in the collectively imagined study having just found a (collectively imagined) map.And as far as this bit of this thread is concerned, all the action is in (iv): what is the social process whereby we form a consensus that my PC has found a map in the study; or, conversely, form a consensus that s/he is mapless despite have turned the study upside down in her search? That process will have almost nothing in commmon the process that determines whether or not I find a real map in real study. It will be a process for bringing it about that a group of people all agree on the content of their shared imaginings. There are different ways to do that.If we reach agreement because the GM decides, that's an actual process for establishing consensus. If we reach agreement because the player decides, that's a different process for establishing consensus (and I personally think can make for boring RPGing: the so-called Czege Principle; some people think this is overstated).If we reach agreement because we agree that, if the coin lands heads the player decides, and if it lands tails the GM decides, and then we toss the coin and stick to our agreement - well, that's a different process again. Replace the coin-toss with a more nuanced way of setting odds for a dice roll, and you have the process I prefer.None of these is more "realistic" than any other: all are actual processes that can happen in the actual world. My PC's discovery of a map in the study doesn't becomre more realistic because the GM's decision generated the consenus rather than the outcome of a dice roll.JRRT made up Lord of the Rings. He didn't receive it handed down on a tablet.Do you call it "Schroedinger's story"? I assume not. All fiction has a point in time before which it had not yet been authored, and after which it had been authored. Authoring it earlier in time, or later in time, relative to when you share it with someone else, doesn't make it more or less "real".Well, here are two risks of the GM making up some fiction in advance.(1) It's not interesting when eventually the GM tells it to the players. (2) The players were really hoping the fiction would be X, but the GM tells them Y.((2) may lead to (1), but can also be its own thing; and (1) can happen even if (2) isn't true.)There is also something that is certain if the GM makes up some fiction in advance: the content of the shared fiction is a manifesttaion of the GM's agency and authorship, and not the players'.Everything in life has risks, and has consequences. I don't need protecting against my preferred approach to RPGing!Why?If I punch you today, you might throw a rock at me tomorrow. Many overt consequences occur separated in time. And space.Eg in my BW game, in the first session the PCs made a fool of a servitor called Athog. Many sessions later, when one of the PCs had a misfortune to run into a mugger in an alley, it was Athog. That's an overt consequence.In my 4e game, when the PCs were 10th level they travelled back in time and rescued a young mage who'd been trapped in a mirror by her mad teacher. Some time later (about six months of play and two or three levels) they learned that she had become a Vecna-worshipping necromancer. Some further time later they learned that she had become an archlich and Vecna's leading exarch (it may be that they didn't learn that until they were 30th level, so probably another 4 years of play later). Those are overt consequences.Part of being a good GM in a player driven game is keeping track of the pressure points that the players have generated for their PCs, and then bringing them to bear in subsequent framing or subsequent failure narration. That's what is meant when "indie"-type RPGers refer to "going where the action is". This is also how you avoid risks (1) and (2) that I identified.One point of [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s post is this: if the stuff is never known by the players then how is it part of the gameplay at all. I mean, a GM can imagine, if s/he wants to, that a PC's horse squashed a bug as the PCs was riding along, and this bug was very precious to the Faerie Queen, who is therefore very mad at the PC. But that GM, in imaging those things, is not playing a RPG with his/her friends. S/he's just me telling herself a story.Suppose this actually matters to play: the GM decides that the Faerie Queen sends some pixies to kill the PC with their invisible archery.If the player never gave any indication that s/he wanted to play a game where bugs might be precious; never sought for, or displayed any interest in, any sign that the Faerie Queen was after his/her PC; then we have an utterly GM-driven game. This is a literal case of the GM reading a story to the players - a story about the PC squashing a bug, making the Faerie Queen angry, and therefore being the target of a pixie SWAT team.That may be a good story, or not. The players may enjoy it, or not. But clearly there is no significant player agency involved in RPGing like that. Which was [MENTION=6682826]CH[/MENTION]achou's main point.OK. That's a fact about you. I can tell you that it doesn't generalise.Besides quirks of individual memory, there are techniques that can be used to avoid what you describe here. For instance, by focusing the fiction on stuff that the players are committed to - by going where the action is - you increase the likelihood that details that get established will be salient to all involved. (Eg if it matters to the players how high the structure and ceiling are - let's say they know the map is in a room with a 25' ceiling - then they'll remember that the room didn't have a ceiling that high, and so you'll never get to the point of narrating your 25' ceiling and stiarcase.)A technique that 4e uses is to use a tier system for escalation of the fiction, which means that the likelihood of replaying the same place is fairly low, for any given place. (It's almost the opposite of 4e in that respect.)Of course a tried-and-true method that is independent of game systems is to write stuff down. Or to get the players to do so.Four things:(1) People don't always notice every smell that in principle they might, so the players' claim about his/her PC is not actually true. (Now if it's his/her PC's schtick to have a high Smell/Taste Perception bonus, that's a different story - in one of my RM games one of the players built such a PC, so that he would be able to notice poisons or drugs in his food; and I think we may have had another PC who had a high bonus in this skill to help with cooking. But part of being a good GM is adapting your narration to the salient abilities of the PCs.)(2) This could happen just as easily if the GM had already written that down in her notes. Writing it down in advance doesn't create some guarantee that you'll (i) remember it before you read it out, nor (ii) that you'll think of all the implications of what you've written down.(3) There might be some reason why it couldn't be smelled (eg maybe it's a visual illusion).(4) Retcons happen all the time. I've had GMs tell me that the room is X by Y feet, then realise they've miscounted the squares and correct it. I've had GMs not mention something that should have been obvious, and therefore let us take back action declarations which make no sense in light of the thing that wasn't mentioned at the start. Etc. So you're going to have to tell me more about why this retcon is not acceptable.That's completely orthongal. It's also contentious.Why is it orthongal? An imaginary reality in which my PC finds a map in the study mirrors reality relatively plausibly (studies are good places to find maps, if there are any to be found in the neighbourhood). It doesn't become more plausible because we agreed on that shared fiction because the GM said so, rather than agreeing on it because of the outcome of a dice roll.Why is it contentious? D&D does not mirror reality in many places. It has different biology (eg dragons can fly and breathe fire; there are giant arthropods). It has different physics (eg conservation laws don't apply; there are other "planes" of existence). It has different sociology (eg societies are primarily pre-modern in technology yet very often modern in some of their basic attitudes and behavious). It has different economics and ecology (eg large numbers of being that are essentially humans are able to live without, it seems, hunting, gathering, rearing animals or growing crops). Etc.Yet D&D is the most popular of all RPGs.I wrote a whole essay in reply to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] discussing this. If the game system and conventions of play permit the player to ask the GM to introduce more fiction than s/he can. As I said, this happens fairly often in my 4e game.If the GM wants to force the player to commit, because that's what the game expects - why are you looking behind that door? what are you hoping for? - then your player who won't commit is simply refusing to play the game. For instance, a player who won't commit simply can't play Burning Wheel as it is written. And is going to have trouble with Cortex+ Heroic also. And will probably come unstuck in 4e skill challenges.Part of exercising your agency over the fiction, as a player, is to commit. A player can't wait to find out whether or not a blow will be a killing one before rolling an attack die. There's no in principle reason why looking through a door should be different.</blockquote>

Verification