Winning and losing in RPGs...

[prabe]

Same. As I said above, I had a lot of that in my head already but a lot of things clicked when I encounter improv and PbtA.

I was free-writing fiction before I was ever trying to GM, and what performance I've done has been almost entirely musical. I guess things attach different to different live experiences, huh?

Well, it's true. Video game devs have been seeing it and talking about it and analyzing it for years. They've advanced to the point of having to design games around players optimizing the fun out of the game with various push/pull mechanics and directly rewarding play they want to see and punishing play they don't. It's wild what the "I must win" mindset will cause people to do. Play in the most boring and optimized way possible just to win.

And one of my other pet peeves is that video games and TRPGs aren't the same; they're different media and they work differently. Expecting TRPGs to work like video games (or vice versa) is the same sort of error as expecting them to work like movies or TV shows or novels.

Given that it's not possible to win or lose an RPG I don't see how.

I hope you take that last with the good humor it was intended.

No worries, I'm not feeling quite as frustrated this time around.

 

[overgeeked]

This is... Strange. Like, the reason systems are interesting is to present challenges that can be honestly engaged with.

Not to me. Systems are interesting in how the mechanics interact with each other. I can present challenges that can be honestly engaged with using any system, even an utterly minimal one. All you need to a basic level of consistency.

If you're not going to do that, you're not playing a game at all, and the whole point of the activity is different. Plus, why would you want the "gamers" there if you're not going to play a game?

We're defining game differently. To you the game is the mechanics, rules, and constraints laid out by the system. To me the game is the conversation and the fiction those mechanics, rules, and constraints are meant to represent.

It's the distinction between the rules and the game. The rules for hockey are found in a book and they define and constrain the game, but they are not the game itself. The game is what happens on the ice when players suit up and the clock starts.

This is why we're talking past each other on this point.

I think my position is maybe best understood by attaching RPGs to the same spectrum board games live in. I think of them as different in quantity, presenting more board states, unbounded play and so on, but not findamentally different in kind. It's still a surprise to me how often the understanding of "game" in the field is coming from improv or theatre instead. It feels increasingly to me that's the angle designs and often players approach from.

As I said in another post, that's absolutely where I'm coming from. Improv in some cases, video games in others, and storytelling in others.

 

[zakael19]

There are real fundamental differences between someone who is playing to win and someone who is playing not to lose. In a TRPG it's possible to encourage the former and discourage the latter.

Yeah, this reminds me of some of my players in Stonetop - their characters have clearly articulated goals, they optimize the fiction to maximize their chances of achieving them, and then we execute the procedures of play to find the outcome. If things go sideways, they're as delighted and figure out what this means for their character/goals/new tack to take. But as Daggerheart says "story is consequence." If you're all equally invested in the goals and where play is going, failing to achieve them can be a serious loss condition that resonates.

If there's no possibility to lose at your goals, stakes are meaningless. This is a frequent criticism of "railroad" play with the players cannot meaningfully achieve or lose at anything the GM doesn't want to happen in fulfillment of the pre-determined story.

 

[overgeeked]

I was free-writing fiction before I was ever trying to GM, and what performance I've done has been almost entirely musical. I guess things attach different to different live experiences, huh?

Same with the writing, but not the musicals. Gah. No thanks. Different strokes and all that.

And one of my other pet peeves is that video games and TRPGs aren't the same; they're different media and they work differently. Expecting TRPGs to work like video games (or vice versa) is the same sort of error as expecting them to work like movies or TV shows or novels.

Yes, they are different mediums but there are clear areas of overlap to each of them. If RPGs are collaborative storytelling games, then it just makes sense to look at other collaborative endeavors, other storytelling approaches, and other types of games to learn. Take what works, discard what doesn't. Refusing to learn from them seems like an incredibly shortsighted mistake to me.

No worries, I'm not feeling quite as frustrated this time around.

Good to know.

 

[prabe]

Same with the writing, but not the musicals. Gah. No thanks. Different strokes and all that.

Just to be clear: Musical as in garage band, not musicals as in operettas.

Yes, they are different mediums but there are clear areas of overlap to each of them. If RPGs are collaborative storytelling games, then it just makes sense to look at other collaborative endeavors, other storytelling approaches, and other types of games to learn. Take what works, discard what doesn't. Refusing to learn from them seems like an incredibly shortsighted mistake to me.

See, for me playing a TRPG is more like writing a story than reading one, and it's not at all like telling a story I already know; and the experience comes with a number of coauthors and all the interesting social interactions that implies. Of course, writing a story for me isn't at all like telling a story I already know ...

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is... Strange. Like, the reason systems are interesting is to present challenges that can be honestly engaged with. If you're not going to do that, you're not playing a game at all, and the whole point of the activity is different. Plus, why would you want the "gamers" there if you're not going to play a game?

This is just absolutely alien to me. Rules can't "get in the way" unless maybe they're poorly implemented/designed. They might be fiddly, but they ultimately are the structure of the thing. Getting them out of the way is also not to do the thing. I can understand a preference for simplicity, but that's an expensive design requirement and constrains the space you can build gameplay in.

I think my position is maybe best understood by attaching RPGs to the same spectrum board games live in. I think of them as different in quantity, presenting more board states, unbounded play and so on, but not findamentally different in kind. It's still a surprise to me how often the understanding of "game" in the field is coming from improv or theatre instead. It feels increasingly to me that's the angle designs and often players approach from.

Agreed. I've always started my understanding of any RPG by focusing on the "G" first.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same with the writing, but not the musicals. Gah. No thanks. Different strokes and all that.

Yes, they are different mediums but there are clear areas of overlap to each of them. If RPGs are collaborative storytelling games, then it just makes sense to look at other collaborative endeavors, other storytelling approaches, and other types of games to learn. Take what works, discard what doesn't. Refusing to learn from them seems like an incredibly shortsighted mistake to me.

Good to know.

There's a big difference for me.I don't see RPGs as collaborative storytelling. It's (to me) a way to explore an imaginary world through an imaginary character, to act as they would and react as they would react, hopefully to predominantly interesting situations.

 

[overgeeked]

See, for me playing a TRPG is more like writing a story than reading one, and it's not at all like telling a story I already know; and the experience comes with a number of coauthors and all the interesting social interactions that implies. Of course, writing a story for me isn't at all like telling a story I already know ...

Shaka, when the walls fell.

 

[Autumnal]

For me, losing at an RPG is not having a good time. This is 100% unaligned with the character succeeding st their goals. The Dark Side sourcebook for Star Wars d20 was a big influence one me with its presentation of a possible character arc of escalating villainy and power capped by the growing resistance their deeds have created bringing them down and justice being done. That would be a great time for me, but not for Darth Vernal.

 

[prabe]

For me, losing at an RPG is not having a good time. This is 100% unaligned with the character succeeding st their goals. The Dark Side sourcebook for Star Wars d20 was a big influence one me with its presentation of a possible character arc of escalating villainy and power capped by the growing resistance their deeds have created bringing them down and justice being done. That would be a great time for me, but not for Darth Vernal.

I can see being more open to some characters not succeeding, but if you (general you, not Autumnal you) make a character with the specific idea they won't succeed, it seems as though there are some success/failure states in play that are not aligned with the characters--other than "having a good time" (whatever that means for a given player with a given game). Honestly that seems more in tune with a GM expecting his baddies to get trounced, eventually. This isn't bad, different people can get different things out of TRPGs, I'm just seeing this and thinking about it. Also, if when a group plays more aligned with their characters' goals, they need to be prepared for the possibility of failure, it seems as though in the case of Darth Vernal you (Autumnal this time) would have to be prepared for the possibility of success. This seems like a very authorial approach.