All y'all motherfuggers better listen up! : comments [benlehman]

You're viewing

benlehman's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

No it isn't. If you're unwilling to compromise with your players, you shouldn't be running an RPG, you should be telling them a story.

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

RPGs are stories. Sure, there's a fuzzy line between RPGs and Interactive Fiction and MUSHes and Improv Theatre, but to claim that a rich campaign setting with an over-arching plot is not appropriate for an RPG is, I think, missing the point.

And there's a difference between compromising with players (something that a good GM should do as a matter of course) and letting the rules dictate that the players borkify the campaign in a spectacular fashion. Ben asked for an example of how the rules could ruin a campaign - I gave him one, and he told me that was because the campaign 'should have been a book'. That is dodging the question.

I contend that holding to this binary notion of "Rules Must Be Obeyed, or Write a Book!" is taking a blinkered approach to the art of gaming.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Look, I'm just saying that a long, drawn out story with a pre-cast ending leaves no room for player participation. Period.

And if you don't care about players participating, it doesn't seem reasonable to me for you to play an RPG. What are you getting out of presenting the story in RPG format if not player participation?

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

It is not a binary equation.

There exists a space between "fully collaborative story-telling (i.e Interactive Fiction and their ilk)" with no GM and "sitting round the fire listening to the Story-teller." This is where RPGs live. Some of these RPGs have written systems. None of these systems are perfect.

The LOTR example is pertinent. The campaign could be described as "The characters discover an artifact of great power, that is sought by the Evil Lord. The characters must face great adversity to destroy this artifact and save the world." That's a long, drawn out story with a (hopefully) pre-cast ending - the saving of the world. It's also been the basis of many, many printed RPGs and campaigns.

The question before us is, is it appropriate for the GM to over-rule The System, and under what circumstances? I gave an example. Dismissing it because 'it should be a book' is dodging the question.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Okay, this whole thing is getting rather pointless, because none of us understand what the social contract of your hypothetical group that you're playing this hypothetical game with.

That action could mean anything from "I'm being silly, let's laugh it off and stop" to "this is a great tactical plan" to "I'm giving you the message that I think your whole 'dark artifact' plot is dull, let's do something else."

I argue that if the social contract is the first, yeah, fiat it away. If it is the second or the third, you are doing your players a great disservice.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. Yes, it isn't a binary. But a fiat system means that the player participation is essentially meaningless.

[link] [parent] [reply]

So the Social Contract trumps the written System Rules?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Written system is a subset of social contract.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

But a fiat system means that the player participation is essentially meaningless.

Gah!

I swear, next time I see you, I'm gonna bean you with something! :)

Stop with the sweeping statements! That a player may not wield total executive control in one scene does not mean that their entire participation is essentially meaningless!

[link] [parent] [reply]

If anything the player does can be rendered moot without any recourse, then their comments are essentially just suggestions that carry no real weight until confirmed.

I mean, this isn't painfully obvious? What else would their contributions be?

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

Okay... here's the thing.

What you are describing is definately a way to play RPGs, and it may be tons of fun.

But me, personally, I would hate to play in that game. I guess it's just a matter of taste (which is totally cool). I hope that you and I can be friends, but if you have tried other types of play (talk to Ben, he's got some cool stuff) and still prefer what you've got, then I think we'll just have to agree that our social activities are going to have to be something other than RPGs :)

Best,

Thomas

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ah, then if we're having a discussion about what we find 'fun', than this is something else entirely and in no way affects how I think about you as a person. :)

kissies,

~magnus

[link] [parent] [reply]

Okay, now that that's out of the way...

I suggest, once again, that you are using the wrong set of rules for your game. Again, a well-designed set of rules never needs to be over-ridden when played in the way they were designed.

I am basically positing that there is some system out there (possibly not yet written) that does everything you want a game to do. You never have to override the rules, ever.

I further posit that said game makes gaming way more fun for you.

Let me go with an analogy. I'm going to use videogames because I love them soooo much, please forgive me. Let's say that I really love arcade fighting games. I mean really, really love them. My personal preference is 2d fighters, I don't know why, but there's something about them. My buddies and I play Soul Caliber 2, because, you know, that's the thing to do. But I really want 2d, so in order to achieve that we make up a meta-game rule "no side stepping".

Sure, we have tons of fun. We hang out and fight, and we don't side step. The question is: Why am I playing Soul Caliber 2 instead of Guilty Gear? It's pretty clear that there's a better game out there for me, yet I insist on playing the one I've got, even though I have to "break the rules" to make it fun. Sure it's only a small break, but wouldn't I be better off with a game that caters to my tastes?

So, you have these tastes. A well-designed game (in respect to those tastes) should never make you chose between following the rules and having as much fun as possible.

That's my position. Does it make sense to you?

Thomas

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

marcus-sez-vote.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

lordsmerf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

marcus-sez-vote.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

lordsmerf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

xiombarg.livejournal.com

I think it's a false assumption to say that the Story that you end up with should necessarily be the Story that you, as GM, want to tell.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Did I make that assumption? My apologies.

How about "The Story shouldn't be curtailed because of a system rule", which is how this all got started.

[link] [parent] [reply]

That was the 100th post. Just FYI.

[link] [parent] [reply]

...and thus, there is Symmetry.

[link] [parent] [reply]

And where is this in your example? I'll need you to convince me that the "story is curtailed" by the easy elimination of the One Ring. Maybe that specific story is curtailed, but there's plenty of story to go around!

Thomas

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, I could always bring in the Space Aliens, but the system wasn't designed to handle laser guns.

...or we could all jusr RP being contented little yeoman farmers in Hobbiton. But it's not quite as Epic. ;-p

Now, if you want seriously argue that the LOTR story isn't prematurely curtailed by the Destruction of the One Ring before Chapter III, I'm afraid I'll have to hunt you down and belt you with a plot fish.

I used LOTR as the example because it's a well-known story - you know what the main narrative thrust was supposed to be (pretend it's a Campaign Background), and there's plenty of scope for Story in 'There and Back Again II: Baggins Bites Back' (An actual example from our game: What if Boromir kills Frodo at the High Chair and flees to Minas Tirith with the Ring? We're not departing from 'The Story', but we, the Players, are making major changes to how 'The Story' originally went).

Also, the example was of a system ganking a GM's background and story work by prematurely ending the campaign through the PC thinking of a novel (but apparently legitimate) use of a system tool - the Eagles.

It's clearly less *overall* fun for all involved if a planned 20 session Epic Campaign is resolved in the second session. The GM *shouldn't have* to bring out the Space Aliens just to pad out the next 18 sessions, when a simple bit of Fiat ("The Eagles don't wanna do it. I know they *said* they'd help, but they're preening today. Tch. Eagles! What can you do? They're so flighty!") will salvage the entire game.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

lordsmerf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

lordsmerf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

lordsmerf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

unrequitedthai.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

Well, if a player is trying to do something, it's probably because they want the story to be that way. You can just as easily say that the story shouldn't be curtailed because of the GM's wishes.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ah, but we're not talking about a simple player vs. GM conflict - we're talking about when the System causes the conflict.

The LOTR example speaks of a 'Summon Eagle Card'. The whole argument is not when it is appropriate for the GM to deny a player the desired resolution, it's when is it appropriate for the GM to ignore the rules of the system to avoid an undesireable (to the GM) resolution.

Ben says 'never', I say not.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

lordsmerf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

wirednavi.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

lordsmerf.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

wirednavi.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

unrequitedthai.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

unrequitedthai.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

wirednavi.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

wirednavi.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

wirednavi.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

evilmagnus

(no subject) —

wirednavi.livejournal.com

I think it's more of a case of a game designer being of the opinion that instead of ignoring rules, one should use a set of rules that actually work, and therefore don't need to be ignored -- and that the "Golden Rule" of "ignore whatever you want" has been used for far too long to justify sloppy game design.

[link] [parent] [reply]

But doesn't that predicate perfect knowledge of the system, *and* a System that is perfectly suited to the campaign? I mean, we're talking Theory here after all - how do you *know* that the System you choose will be the most perfectly suited one for the game that you end up playing? (assuming, of course, that there's no Universal System of All that you can use.)

People make mistakes. People don't always know the rules back-to-front. The Rule of Unintended Consequences will occasionally spawn and bite people in the ass. This whole contentious monkey knife fight started when I asked what do you do when you realize the System is borked?

The choices I've been given have been:
- Choose another System (not always practical in the middle of a campaign).
- Systems can be perfect, and you're an Idiot for not using the Perfect System (not the most helpful suggestion).
- It's not the System's fault, it's your fault for choosing/not knowing the system (ditto).
- If the players want to do it, and the system allows it, suck it up (a corollary of 'The System cannot be wrong, even if it's flawed')
- It should have been a book, not a campaign (best evar!).

...but whatever you do, never ever ignore the Rule - if you do, the entirety of the player's contributions for the entire campaign are worthless.

So I think I'm just going to continue being a backwoods hick and keep the Golden Rule.

[link] [parent] [reply]

In the case of mistake, you have a mature discussion with the players about it. Perhaps someone needs to drop out. Perhaps the ruleset DOES need to be adjusted. But this isn't just the GM's decision to make, because everyone's fun is involved.

Again, you are trying to solve a social problem with with a rule, when you should be handling it on the social level. GM fiat to suspend rules only helps if the GM is a mind-reader, or if he talks to his players -- in which case, fiat becomes largely undeeded as everyone discusses their needs and desires like resonsible adults.

A gaming group is like any other relationship. Simplistic rules of thumb are never a substitute for handing social issues on a social level. You don't solve a problem with a baseball player sexually molesting another baseball player by increasing the power of the referee.

[link] [parent] [reply]

A gaming group is like any other relationship. Simplistic rules of thumb are never a substitute for handing social issues on a social level. You don't solve a problem with a baseball player sexually molesting another baseball player by increasing the power of the referee.

Actually, i thought we just got the FCC to levy increasingly stiff fines until The Children are adequately protected from the terrorists... :)

[link] [parent] [reply]

You assume that you can't trust your players to act like adults when they attempt to "borkify," in your opinion, the game and you ask them not to. I'm saying you shouldn't play with players who are going to borkify the game in the first place, or who are going to get bent out of shape when you ask them to work with you instead of against you.

Once again, you are trying to solve a social problem thought non-social systemic means, and it's doomed to failure. If you can't trust your players, stop playing with them.

[link] [parent] [reply]

May