All y'all motherfuggers better listen up! : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
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
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
:)
(no subject)
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!
(no subject)
I mean, this isn't painfully obvious? What else would their contributions be?
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
Actually, it's not. "With Great Power, comes Great Responsibility." See Izzy's comment about the subtle difference between occasional use of Fiat 'for the good of the plot' verses constant railroading by Fiat. Again, this is not a binary proposition!
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.
Version 1:
Player: "I try the door."
GM: "The door is locked." (The GM possess knowledge about the door that the player does not know - that it is locked.)
Player: "I try to pick the lock!" (The player suggests a course of action)
GM: (rolls dice) "You fail! The lock is unpickable." (The system resolves the conflict between Player and Door. The Cosmic Dance continues.)
Version 2:
Player: "I try the door."
GM: "The door is locked." (The GM possess knowledge about the door that the player does not know - that it is locked.)
Player: "I try to pick the lock!" (The player suggests a course of action)
GM: "You fail! The lock is unpickable." (The GM resolves 'by fiat' the conflict between Player and Door. The Cosmic Dance continues.)
The subjective experience of the player remains the same in both circumstances (trys to pick lock, fails), and the objective status of the door remains consistent in game (door, locked, unpickable).
Explain to me how these two actions, both of which involve the player's *desired* course of action being thwarted, render all the player's input to the game worthless.
Bonus points will be awarded if you can explain how version 2 is so completely abhorent that it should make anyone who even considers it to give up gaming and just write a book instead. :)
(no subject)
Be well.
(no subject)
(sorry, bwain fried from having to think on a Monday)
(no subject)
The key here, I'd say, is that it is often far more satisfying and interesting to say, 'sure, you can do X, but it will have Y effect' instead of 'No, you can't do X because there's this problem (which is something I placed there because I don't want you to do X)'.
(no subject)
(no subject)
And I'd say that nine times out of ten, the GM does have the best idea of what's best for the game.
Consider; of all the people in the room, the GM has the 'most perfect' knowledge of the game world.
The GM also is privvy to *all* private information given him by all PCs (you've played Amber, you know how that works).
The GM handles the motivation and goals of all NPCs.
The GM typically has the primary responsibility of keeping the game moving, interesting and 'on track'.
Sure, this isn't the case in no-GM shared-responsibilty games like MUSHes and some Systems, but it's the case in most traditional RPGs.
(no subject)
(no subject)
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
(no subject)
kissies,
~magnus
(no subject)
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
(no subject)
Your position makes perfect sense.
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.
What you are describing is the Platonic Theory of Game Design - that all current games are but imperfect shadows of their own Perfect Game, that if we could just see it would suit us all perfectly. I'm assuming here that you're familiar with Plato's Theory of the Forms - my apologies if this is not the case.
The problem is two fold : First, that the Perfect Game does not physically exist and that awkward gits like myself argue that it can never exist in this world - we can only strive to attain the Perfect Game, but we can never fully achieve it.
Now, given that the Perfect Game is not achievable in this world, what do we do when the System breaks?
Ben's position, I think, is that when the system and GM come into conflict, the System must win, else it renders all participation of the players worthless.
My position is that, in a System vs. GM conflict, the GM must win, as we are dealing with an imperfect system that cannot be aware of all the factors (both in game and out) that will be affected by the resolution of that conflict.
Now, whether or not the GM can correctly identify a 'game-breaking' conflict between him and the System is another issue entirely. I'd suggest that 'bad' GMs are those who fail to correctly identify game-breaking events, and over-rule the system unnecessarily.
It's a judgement call, basically - you have to trust the GM to make the correct decision, based on his experience and greater world-knowledge than the players. That's the basis of the Social Contract (yay J.S. Mill!) that underpins all games - and a strong Social Contract between players and GM can lead to a succesful game, irregardless of System used.
There, that's my mini-treatise for the day. :)
(no subject)
There is no perfect system, I agree. However, we have now developed systems (per EFL: "There is a better way.") that do not break! Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but we have the technology.
Caveat: we have games that do not break when played to their strengths. It sounds like you want a game loaded with Illusionistic techniques. While I haven't seen one yet, I bet I could hash one out and write it up if I were ever motivated to do so. All the knowledge to make that game exists.
Now, if the game never (literally) breaks, why do I say it's imperfect? Because it does not make play as fun as it could. Somewhere the system breaks down and while it enhances things, you could imagine something that enhances the fun even more.
I don't think you and Ben are arguing over who wins when the game breaks, I think you're arguing at one step above that. Ben is saying that a good game never breaks and you are saying that, in the real world, all games break.
I'm with Ben on this one. Maybe in the 70's when someone first invented the formalized RPG they all broke. But it's been over 30 years now, and we've come a long way.
So, once again. There is a game which, if it does not exist now could be created and published within the year (i.e. we have the techniques to do it), which never has mechanical (i.e. systemic) conflict with any of the players (which includes the GM).
Now, I won't disagree with your point that a game can be fun regardless of the rule-set you use. What I am saying is that if you, in actual real-life play, find yourself ignoring rules then you are settling for less than you have to. The days of all systems breaking somewhere are long gone.
Thomas
(no subject)
Dude. Monopoly doesn't break. But it's no good for a Dungeon Crawl. Stratego doesn't break - but it's not an accurate simulation of land warfare. I guess what I'm saying is I don't doubt that it is possible to create internally consistent Grand Systems that don't break providing play remains within the defined system scope.
I don't think you and Ben are arguing over who wins when the game breaks, I think you're arguing at one step above that. Ben is saying that a good game never breaks and you are saying that, in the real world, all games break.
This is exactly correct.
I'm with Ben on this one. Maybe in the 70's when someone first invented the formalized RPG they all broke. But it's been over 30 years now, and we've come a long way.
I, meanwhile, will remain the skeptic in the corner. Maybe when I come Out West Ben can show me one of these unbreakable systems. Until then, I need to pay more attention to the Forge. It seems I have let it pass beneath my gaze for too long ...
(no subject)
Be well.
(no subject)
So, your choice is: play this patched version of Soul Caliber 2, which gets you "close enough" to what you're looking for. Or play this new game (maybe shopping around until you find it) that does exactly what you want. Sure the second option is more work, but dang if the results aren't way more satisfying.
Thomas
(no subject)
Be well.
(no subject)