From a practical standpoint ,IMO the GM should be the only one considered an auteur. No two games of DiTV for example, are the same. Even though there may be a very rigid structure, it all boils down to interpretation.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBHey, if you don't want to then that's cool.  But that's a different thing entirely from saying that the designers of Balinese espresso machines are hoarding the power and freedom that should be in the hands of the coffee brewer.  Agreed?

You're twisting the analogy so hard that I can almost hear it begging for a lawyer.

Quote from: TonyLBSome indie games, yes.  Also very true.

I still don't get what this has to do with the game designer having more power or freedom than the players.

Because the game designer has decided the scenario which will be played through with his or her game, in the case of DitV/MLwM-style games, *and* in many cases how that scenario will pan out.

Note that I am not talking about choice of game here. You can always choose not to play a game. But if you choose to play one of those games, you have to accept that the game designer has already made a bunch of very important decisions - perhaps even the most important decisions - about what is going to happen. Within the context of a specific game, the game designer's own ideas are exerting more influence over what happens than those of the GM or the players.

Quote from: TonyLBHey, if you don't want to then that's cool.  But that's a different thing entirely from saying that the designers of Balinese espresso machines are hoarding the power and freedom that should be in the hands of the coffee brewer.  Agreed?

The analogy works better if you can only use one coffee machine at a time. If you want to switch them over, you have to pack them up (toss away all the old character sheets and crap) and then carefully calibrate the new machine (go over character gen and stuff all over again) - it's a real hassle. You know damn well - because you've used it a couple of times previously - that if you use the Balinese espresso machine you're only going to get Balinese espresso - and only Balinese espresso which fits the designers' ideas as to what Balinese espresso should taste like.

So, the Balinese espresso machine is going to gather dust and only going to come out occasionally. But WHILE THE MACHINE IS BEING USED the power's with the designers. They've chosen exactly what you're going to drink tonight!

Bottom line: my original point ONLY refers to the context of a game WHILE IT IS BEING PLAYED. Choice of game is IRRELEVANT.

Quote from: David RFrom a practical standpoint ,IMO the GM should be the only one considered an auteur.

Except the indie RPG movement seems to revolve around designer-as-personality. The very definition of an "indie" game - creator-owned and written - seems to preclude collaboration, compromise, editorial input.

QuoteNo two games of DiTV for example, are the same. Even though there may bea very rigid structure, it all boils down to interpretation.

No two grapes are the same, but there's still more similarities between a grape and a grape and a grape and a carrot.

Indie games are a bit more like boardgames.  Nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: StuartIndie games are a bit more like boardgames.  Nothing wrong with that.

Way better analogy Stu. I don't know why we were drinking coffee anyhow.

Quote from: WarthurBottom line: my original point ONLY refers to the context of a game WHILE IT IS BEING PLAYED. Choice of game is IRRELEVANT.

Well that's just silly.  That's like saying "butchers steal people's freedom" because you point out (rightly!) that it wouldn't be good to force-feed meat to vegetarians.

Focussed games appeal to the people who want what they're offering.  That choice ... that "wanting what they're offering" ... I don't see how you can talk about this subject without referring to it.

OK...I just want to get a gauge on where the discussion stands.

Are you agreeing, Tony, that these games - we'll call them "Indie" and taking that to mean owner controlled AND tiightly focused - do allow the designer to assert more control (in as much as someone not sitting at the table playing can assert control) once the decision has been made to choose to play one?

Risk asserts more control over the gameplay than most wargames -- especially more free form wargames with a game master, like the Army uses. And yet, you don't see people bemoaning this as a problem with boardgames.  It's just the way it is.

James:  Uh ... I'm honestly not sure.  That's not a way I would even think to phrase it.

I mean ... I don't think that there is any way that the designer exerts control, except that people can voluntarily choose to play the game that designer wrote.

I certainly agree that games like MLwM and DitV offer a much narrower range of possible stories than D&D or (at the extremes) GURPS.

D&D might well be the right choice for you if you want to play occult investigators, or scheming courtiers, or dungeon-delvers, or pirates, or other-worldly plane-walkers.

DitV is pretty much only the right choice for you if you want to play morally charged outsiders who pass judgments on the troubles of a closely-knit community.

I can totally see that that's a more tightly defined field of fun.  I just don't see how Vincent is "asserting control" over people who have said "Oh cool, let's play that specific type of game."

I have to agree with Tony's point, that indie games, no matter how focused are not inherently opressive at the table for two reasons:

1) If you're buying such a narrow focused game, your've done some checking and you have a pretty good idea of what you're getting in return. You're spending your money because you're willing to give the game a shot. To follow Stuart's more astute analogy, you're not buying Scrabble so you can replicate the experience of playing Clue.

2) Even then it's just a book which is more than vulnerable to the house-ruling whims of the average owner. Since there's nothing that can stop you from buying Polaris and chucking it in the paper shredder, there's even less to stop you from taking the rules and setting from that game and trying to turn it into a more traditional RPG experience.

See, for me, I'd rather people who buy my games take em and do what they want with them in terms of playing.

If you really want to use Hearts & Souls for high fantasy game: Why should I the designer care? (For the record one of the original playtesters did just that.)

Have fun, rock the game your own way.

Quote from: WarthurExcept the indie RPG movement seems to revolve around designer-as-personality. The very definition of an "indie" game - creator-owned and written - seems to preclude collaboration, compromise, editorial input.

:shrug: You are probably right. I did say "practical standpoint" , but that's just my bias showing because as far as RPGs are concerned, what interest me, is what happens around the gaming table.

I do think that not all indie games have the rigid structure of DiTV & MlwM. In Harms Way for instance does not fall into the same design style as the two games previously mentioned, but could still be considered an indie game. And I do think that Clash, IHW's designer could be considered an auteur, by auteur I mean someone who presents a unique style & vision, and whose games (and indeed many other indie games) do not necessarily have a rigid structure.

QuoteNo two grapes are the same, but there's still more similarities between a grape and a grape and a grape and a carrot.

I've always had problems with RPG analogies. The above is the reason why. Sure two games of DiTV have certain similarities, but if one actually played in two different DitV games, or any game for that matter, one would probably not even notice the similarites, but rather the difference. That's the beauty of RPGs.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: WarthurThe indie designers have been trying to get the pendulum to swing back towards the players, but I suspect what they've actually done is aligned it towards the game designers instead.

1） I completely agree with your posts.  Insightful.
2) Flyingmice, as usual, gets it right (many indie-alternative games are more like modules with system-attached)
3) Your point about traditional games assuming the GM is an auteur v. desiger-as-auteur is especially well-stated

I'm less interested with the digression into force that took several posts -- given the clarity of your post, I wonder why that was necessary.

There's a question floating around in my head about game-system as art... I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it, but it's something like this:

I think GMing and roleplaying a character is a kind of performance art. I don't mean fine art or high art of any kind; I mean that it's entertaining for the people around and can be fulfilling to the folks performing.

GMing, especially, is (I think) a kind of oral storytelling, which I think can qualify as honest-to-goodness art.

I'll note that Wikipedia backs me up -- I believe it lists roleplaying as a performance art.

Game design is trickier; clearly some designers see their games as art (both the physical product and the concept). I think that's probably valid, but I suspect that it creates a conflict of interest --

A traditional game is a text-book or cookbook that the players use to create their own art. The focus is on empowering the players (GM-inclusive). The system and physical product is often utilitarian.

An art-game is meant to be, itself, a work of art. It's less important that it be played; the act of creation / publishing is key.

Virtually all games fall on a spectrum (even the most text-book like games -- I'm thinking Star Fleet Battles) are probably viewed with a pride-of-owneship by their creators similar to what an artist or author would feel for his work... and clearly the most self-focused indie game designer would hope his creation would actually be played...

But if the focus -- at the end of the day -- is on the game and not the play that might explain your loss of patience... and it raises a question: if a game designer sees *himself* as an auteur, does that limit his ability to produce a work that is superior in actual play?

Fascinating stuff.
-E.