TheRPGSite

You might have heard this argument, that the GM should be in charge of the game world and the players should be in charge of one (and one only) PC.
The players shouldn't tell the GM how to run his world and the GM shouldn't tell his players how to run their characters.

I'm going to tell you, why this is a half-truth.

So I'm in charge of my character. Great. He's a half-elven Ranger of 3rd Level and invested into the Dodge, Mobility and Point Blank Shot feats.
Thats it.
What do you mean, 'He's supposed to have a backstory?' This isn't covered in the rules. Are you telling me already how to  run my character?
Ah well, just to make you happy: He's from Cheeseville, Cheesehausen and has a skin made of CHEESE!
Still not happy? Now why could that be?
You might argue that the above example is a bit extreme, so replace the cheese with, say, being adopted by orcs when he was very young. Now thats cool with you isn't it (especially since it explains him havin orcish as a bonus language)?... except when you look at your campaign world you suddenly notice, there aren't actually any orc tribes living anywhere near the area the game is set in. So the player can't play the character he likes, even you as a GM would be cool with it...
Aaaah no sweat! You simply create a orc tribe and place it into an empty corner of the campaign world. Done. Fixed.
But wait a moment! The player said "My character was raised by orcs" and suddenly there are orcs in your campaign. Isn't this (*gasp*) Player Empowerment?
OK, you as a GM had to approve the change. And the GM knows what is best for the campaign world, right?
Right.
Except when he's wrong.
Say, I'm having my character have a affair with a hot NPC and this is really giving (in my opinion) making the character shine. The GM, however, thinks it would make for a great adventure starter, if the NPC would be killed (and the group going off to hunt the killer ...blahblah).
Now he might have had the best of intentions, but effectively he ruined what was cool about the character for me. I could continue playing him, but it would
a) not consistent with how I played the character before
or
b) no fun for me
You only way you wouldn't have a problem with this, is if you're buying into the railroader credo "The GM knows what is best for the campaign world AND for the PCs!"
And I'm not drinking this flavor of Kool-Aid, thank you very much!

So divorcing GM-world-control from player-PC-control is really an artificial distinction, no matter from which angle you approach it.

On a more basic level, what are we really talking about?
Something I call "truisms", things that apply to the campaign world, even though they aren't in the rules.
Things fall down. The characters breathe air. The basic stuff.
But who enforces these truisms?
The GM alone? Hardly. Think about it: if you were a player would you want to listen to all the possible situations that can arise in the game, to find out if this kind of GM-style fits your idea of a fun game.
Nope, you just ride along, expecting the GM is operating on the same premises you are. If a situation comes up, that makes no sense whatsoever for you, do you quietly suck it up or do you tell the GM "what the fuck do you think you're doing?"
For me its the latter, including when I GM myself. The art of listening to my players, reacting to their objections, shortly explaining your call or, if you see their point, quickly adapt the game world so that play can continue is are among THE most important techniques for a GM.
To avoid accidental mishaps like the dead-girlfriend above I let my players fill me in (in very general terms) which directions they would like to see the game go down (and, more importantly, which not).

So how does this theory work in games where the players have control over the game world (through Stakes or what-have-you)?
Not much different, really.
In the above example the players already perform a kind of QC-check on what the GM says and if they don't like it, well either be a bastard and force through your version (and lose the group in the process) or adapt and prosper. In the same way the players are checking the content of what the other players contribute and object when they feel its necessary (like the GM any player has the power to refuse a compromise and "run away with the adventure", but for the same reasons as why the GM doesn't do it, the player also doesn't do it).
To make sure everyone is on the same page from the beginning these kind of games often require you to set some basic truisms of the game from the beginning that define what the session/campaign should be like.

This makes the process manageable and fun for everyone involved.
It also avoids PCs being crushed by a random Sperm Whale.

Welcome to the world of playing with a socialized bunch of friends, instead of a group of spastic strangers who need to formally legislate interaction.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWelcome to the world of playing with a socialized bunch of friends, instead of a group of spastic strangers who need to formally legislate interaction.

Quite.

Whenever somebody tries to go all folksy Socratic on me I get totally confused. Which ruse am I supposed not to perceive, again? That Stakes thing he slipped in? Layers within dolls, ah the humanity, the metaness of it all.

Well, his last paragraph at least means that the essay cuts both ways, but this

QuoteSo divorcing GM-world-control from player-PC-control is really an artificial distinction, no matter from which angle you approach it.

is far less earthshaking than it might at first seem.

Alexandro, it's all artificial until the GM takes a stick and hits you over the head like a Zen master.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWelcome to the world of playing with a socialized bunch of friends, instead of a group of spastic strangers who need to formally legislate interaction.

The problem is that one can have a large circle of friends, and the friends with whom one games can unexpectedly turn into hostile strangers if the game angers them enough.

A lot of friendships are weaker than one thinks.

One turns the shared story to a slightly unpleasant direction -- the friendship cools and the friend dislikes the story.

One says something sufficiently unpleasant -- the friendship turns to dislike.

Quote from: alexandroIn the above example the players already perform a kind of QC-check on what the GM says and if they don't like it, well either be a bastard and force through your version (and lose the group in the process) or adapt and prosper. In the same way the players are checking the content of what the other players contribute and object when they feel its necessary (like the GM any player has the power to refuse a compromise and "run away with the adventure", but for the same reasons as why the GM doesn't do it, the player also doesn't do it).
To make sure everyone is on the same page from the beginning these kind of games often require you to set some basic truisms of the game from the beginning that define what the session/campaign should be like.

I think you need to elaborate exactly what you mean by QC -- I'm guessing "quality control" -- it probably means different things to different people.

Also I think you might sketch some rule mechanics for shared world creation.

And ... what do you think of Greg Stolze's "In Spaaace!" in this context?

Quote from: riprockThe problem is that one can have a large circle of friends, and the friends with whom one games can unexpectedly turn into hostile strangers if the game angers them enough.

A lot of friendships are weaker than one thinks.

One turns the shared story to a slightly unpleasant direction -- the friendship cools and the friend dislikes the story.

One says something sufficiently unpleasant -- the friendship turns to dislike.

All true, unfortunately there's no solution to be found in rules; in fact, in a bad situation, rules may simply provide fodder for making things worse.

Quote from: alexandroAnd the GM knows what is best for the campaign world, right?
Right.
Except when he's wrong
...
You only way you wouldn't have a problem with this, is if you're buying into the railroader credo "The GM knows what is best for the campaign world AND for the PCs!"
And I'm not drinking this flavor of Kool-Aid, thank you very much!

I play with GM's I'd trust with the vision for the game world. They run the world, I run my character. No railroading involved (and no illusionism).

If one of them created a situation where my favorite NPC was likely to die and she did... I'd trust that they do, in fact, know what's best for the game.

So far I haven't been wrong with these guys.

It turns out the Kool-Aid is flavored with Trust and Rocking GM Skills. I don't recommend trying this with a bunch of jackasses or with someone with a dull or pedantic vision... but if you run into a really good GM, I recommend trying the Kool-Aid.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: alexandroYou might have heard this argument, that the GM should be in charge of the game world and the players should be in charge of one (and one only) PC.
The players shouldn't tell the GM how to run his world and the GM shouldn't tell his players how to run their characters.

I'm going to tell you, why this is a half-truth.

So I'm in charge of my character. Great. He's a half-elven Ranger of 3rd Level and invested into the Dodge, Mobility and Point Blank Shot feats.
Thats it.
What do you mean, 'He's supposed to have a backstory?' This isn't covered in the rules. Are you telling me already how to  run my character? ...

The flaw in this argument proceeds from here, goes through some rather convoluted twists and lands here:

QuoteIt also avoids PCs being crushed by a random Sperm Whale.

The absurdity is fun.  But I'd like to address the flaw.  When the GM owns the BackStory, that includes the History of the Character up to the point at which the Player starts Playing the Character.  Say at age 18.  

That's how I've always seen it done, and it's never wound up being "You come from CHEESE and have CHEESE Skin", thus far.  Instead, it usually goes more like, "Your Character comes from the peasant/craftsman/warrior/noble house of Such-n-So, and his parents are poor/rich So-n-So's.   On his last birthday his father gave him such-n-such gifts, and now on this fine crisp morning, he wakes up with the World ahead of him..."   or some such.

The rest of the argument derives from the initial wrong turn.   You therefore got lost in the miasma and wound up getting sucked into the 'Infinite Probability Drive' facing off against the Whale.  Tis unfortunate when that happens.   One never likes to be crushed beneath the Whale.

Quote from: riprockThe problem is that one can have a large circle of friends, and the friends with whom one games can unexpectedly turn into hostile strangers if the game angers them enough.

I would be angry if people's characters had skin made of cheese.

Quote from: riprockOne turns the shared story to a slightly unpleasant direction -- the friendship cools and the friend dislikes the story.

One says something sufficiently unpleasant -- the friendship turns to dislike.

Then the friendship is piss-weak, and was doomed to die at some point anyway, over some more substantial issue such as whether sandwiches should have mayonnaise or not. When it comes to weak friendships and bad rpg campaigns, I support involuntary euthanasia.

I mean honestly, someone comes to you with their character with a skin of cheese, and you decide to never speak to them again, and weep at the loss of that great intimate bond you once shared? Does this shit really happen outside Bizzaro Hypothetical Land?

I would be AWESOME to have character's who's skin was made of
Milk and Cheese!!!

(http://imgred.com/http://home.blarg.net/~wayule/graphics/milk_cheese.jpg)


RAA!!! :haw:

It would be AWESOME to have character's who's skin was made of
Milk and Cheese!!!

(http://imgred.com/http://home.blarg.net/~wayule/graphics/milk_cheese.jpg)


RAA!!! :haw:

Quote from: Kyle AaronThen the friendship is piss-weak, and was doomed to die at some point anyway, over some more substantial issue such as whether sandwiches should have mayonnaise or not. When it comes to weak friendships and bad rpg campaigns, I support involuntary euthanasia.

I mean honestly, someone comes to you with their character with a skin of cheese, and you decide to never speak to them again, and weep at the loss of that great intimate bond you once shared?

I don't weep at the loss of friendships, but I do get annoyed with games that weaken friendships.

*Many* friendships are piss-weak.  *Many* friendships are short-lived.  

Some leisure activities can take a weak friendship and strengthen it; other activities can take a strong friendship and weaken it.

Any given leisure activity can strengthen or weaken friendships.  Consider two choices: (1) My hobby introduced me to strangers and made them into friends; (2) My hobby took friends and turned them into strangers.

If TRPGs mostly weaken friendships, that partly explains why the TRPG hobby is weaker than it used to be.

If (e.g.) console gaming and LAN partying tend to strengthen piss-weak friendships, perhaps that means they will define the future of gaming when TRPGs have dwindled to a fraction of their current size.

No. A "friendship" is a bond beyond any single activity. If all you do with them is that one thing, and without that one thing there's nothing between you, that's not a friendship, it's "acquaintance" or something.

If some stranger at the pub vomits on me, I won't want to associate with him, because there's nothing between us and now something crappy happened. But if my friend pukes on me, I won't be happy, but I'll continue to associate with him afterwards.

Just because someone is friendly doesn't mean they're your friend.

A genuine friendship will survive a crap game session. And anyway, a crap game session is your fault, not the fault of the rules.

I've gamed with over 500 people since I began in 1983, and played or run over 50 systems. Every single session that was good was to the credit of me and the other players, and every single session that was bad was the fault of me and the other players. rpgs neither weaken nor strengthen relationships, it's simply another activity together, and friendships are built by diverse activities over time. That's why snacks are so important, because you're adding the "dining together" activity to the "roleplaying" one.

People matter. The common element in all your crap game sessions is you. The common element in all your good game sessions is you. Just as no laws can make men good, no game system can make you a good gamer, or a crap one.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's why snacks are so important, because you're adding the "dining together" activity to the "roleplaying" one.

Cheetoist plug-in alert! :D

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's why snacks are so important, because you're adding the "dining together" activity to the "roleplaying" one.

Snacks ?!! Feh ! Here, good sir, we have coq au vin, gâteau charentais and mango crumble before gaming !

Culinary specifics apart, I have to concur. I've been gaming for a long time too, and I can't remember people staying 'gaming acquaintances' for very long. They tend to drift off or become friends.

I also find that you know pretty quickly if there's any chance they'll become friends. I mean, you can never be sure if they will become your friends, but you can be sure when they definitely won't.

"Ah, yeah... this one? I'll just game with them for this campaign. Nice person and all, but... yeah."

Then of course there are those you'd hoped would become your friend, but you find they're only interested in the gaming, they don't talk to you otherwise. Well, that's okay, too - some you win, some you lose.

Nowadays I have a vetting procedure. One of the qualifications of anyone who I'll invite to game with us is that they must have at least two out of three of:- job, friends, spouse. Anyone can lose one or more of these for a few months, even - if they're unlucky, or move countries - for a couple of years. And some people focus on two of them so miss out on the third, that's fair enough. But if they've been without two or all three of them for five or more years, basically you're looking at someone who's lacking in social skills, or social effort (they just don't give a shit), which is going to hurt your game sessions one way or another.

I don't roleplay to cure the socially inept. Though I understand the Nordics like to game as group therapy, and a few Forgers, too - but that ain't me.

Roleplaying is a social creative hobby. The social part comes first; the creative part complements the social part, it doesn't clash with it. If a "friendship" ends because of an argument about a rule on page 232, or because someone created a drowlesbianstripperninja, then it wasn't a friendship, it was just some dweeb you gamed with a few times.

And that's okay. We don't have to befriend everyone we meet. It's okay to hold something back, and make "friendship" something special. Something strong enough to survive such terrible, painful, tremendous stresses over rules arguments.

Because roleplaying's a social creative hobby, these neat divisions of GM and player authority, neat divisions which work so well on paper - they don't exist in reality. So this thing where, "oh, if the player controls their character, does that mean that when the player creates a psionic ninja cyborg with built-in arm miniguns for the medieval Europe campaign, the GM can't say no?" this just doesn't exist in the real world. Just as it doesn't happen that the GM says, "rocks fall, you die" and the players all accept that without a murmur of protest.

Basically the players are in charge of their characters, and the GM is in charge of the game world. But let's consider what we're saying. "In charge of" does not mean "has complete control of". A child can be under your charge, or a store can be if you're an employee of the place. That means they're your responsibility, you're supposed to take care of them and do what's in their interests, watch over them in a thoughtful way. It doesn't mean you're some tyrannical lord over them. You're in charge of them.

So when we say that the players are in charge of their characters, and the GM in charge of the game world, that means that each should watch over it, look out for it, think of what's best for it. It doesn't mean controlling every little movement of it like some mindless puppet. Add to this the idea that roleplaying's a social creative hobby, when we remember the "social" bit, in comes compromise, discussion and so on.

This idea that we gamers are all madly stubborn uncompromising fucksticks, it's just wrong. Players genuinely enjoy seeing other players enjoy themselves. You read Forger theories like alexandro's, and you get the impression that each player only impatiently tolerates the presence of other players, including the GM, each player waiting, saying, "hurry the fuck up so we can get to my awesome character, and don't you try to hog the spotlight either, GM!"

It just ain't like that. Sure, there are crap game groups out there. But you know, that's simply because we're human, and human relationships fuck up from time to time. There's nothing intrinsic in gaming itself, still less in a particular game's rules, that makes this or that group fuck up, any more than laws about marriage are responsible for a marriage breakup. People just get along sometimes, and argue at others, and some people are good at resolving disagreements, and some people are really bad at it - and some differences are irreconcilable.

The rules have got nothing to do with it, and neither has gaming as a whole. It's just people. We've got a social creative hobby. So if you're anti-social, a bit of an annoying bastard, or if you're extraordinarily dull and uncreative, then you won't have very good game experiences. Shit, you might even only have "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

Quote from: Kyle AaronI also find that you know pretty quickly if there's any chance they'll become friends. I mean, ....

The rules have got nothing to do with it, and neither has gaming as a whole. It's just people. We've got a social creative hobby. So if you're anti-social, a bit of an annoying bastard, or if you're extraordinarily dull and uncreative, then you won't have very good game experiences. Shit, you might even only have "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

Shortened the quote to save space, but agree with everything said.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron... There's nothing intrinsic in gaming itself, still less in a particular game's rules, that makes this or that group fuck up, any more than laws about marriage are responsible for a marriage breakup. People just get along sometimes, and argue at others, and some people are good at resolving disagreements, and some people are really bad at it - and some differences are irreconcilable.

The rules have got nothing to do with it, and neither has gaming as a whole. It's just people.

I definitely disagree.

I think some rule systems encourage arguments and ego-conflicts more than others.

In particular:Mage the Ascension rules can turn a previously friendly gaming group into a nasty squabble.  It's not the groups: it's the fact that the rules really are badly written, logically incoherent, and prone to exacerbate miscommunication.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe common element in all your crap game sessions is you. The common element in all your good game sessions is you. Just as no laws can make men good, no game system can make you a good gamer, or a crap one.

I'm Caesar Slaad, and I approve this message. :cool:

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe absurdity is fun.  But I'd like to address the flaw.  When the GM owns the BackStory, that includes the History of the Character up to the point at which the Player starts Playing the Character.  Say at age 18.

Your players don't write character histories themselves?
I'm asking because if you give a player control of GM-created content it is basically impossible for the player to meet the expectations the GM set, without some SERIOUS briefing on what exactly those expectations are. At some point the GM is bound to say "No, you don't play your character right." (something that- in my opinion- should never happen in a RPG).

QuoteThat's how I've always seen it done, and it's never wound up being "You come from CHEESE and have CHEESE Skin", thus far.  Instead, it usually goes more like, "Your Character comes from the peasant/craftsman/warrior/noble house of Such-n-So, and his parents are poor/rich So-n-So's.   On his last birthday his father gave him such-n-such gifts, and now on this fine crisp morning, he wakes up with the World ahead of him..."   or some such.

Fair and right.
But not what I'm talking about.

The question is: Who can bring which kind of content into the game (and who is judging the quality of it)?

The theory I'm challenging is basically "All content is either created by the GM or presented to the GM, who then judges the quality of it and decides if he includes it into the game. Any content created or accepted by the GM is final and the players don't judge its quality."
I pointed out a couple of inconsistencies, basically:
a) Players do challenge what the GM says and therefore must also do a fair part judging- they just find most of what the GM says appropriate and don't challenge it, unless something really weird and out-of-sync with the setting (being killed by a cow falling from space- which might, on the other hand, be totally appropriate in a game of Toon) happens.

b) Most players are able to exercise creative restraint and avoid content, which might offend the other players (unless they know exactly they are not going to be offended).

c) The best games are those, where all participants contribute something to the game in interesting and unforeseen ways.

d) Severely limiting the options a player has of adding something to the game (i.e. instead of being limited to the actions his character could take, he is limited to the actions his character could take, which make sense in the context of a stifling character concept) reduces the chances of c) happening.

e) Expanding the options a player has of adding something to the game (i.e. the player plays not just his character, but also decides how the NPCs react to him or somesuch) isn't something which inherently reduces the quality of the game, unless the players are incapable of b).

f) The concept of the GM being the "alpha" of the group also fails, if the players are incapable of b).

Like Kyle Aaron said: its really just basic social group dynamics (its just hard to assume those on the 'net :D ).

@riprock: All rules encourage miscommunication.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe common element in all your crap game sessions is you. The common element in all your good game sessions is you. Just as no laws can make men good, no game system can make you a good gamer, or a crap one.

Interestingly enough, this sounds a lot like some of my friends used to say, to me and to many other folks: "The common element of all your complaints is you.  Don't complain about the world -- change yourself."

I'd be interested in knowing if the slogan derives from some popular source, perhaps a pop psychology book.

Perhaps no laws can make men good.  But that's not the same as saying that all sets of laws are equally good, or that laws can never contribute to human problems.  Some laws really are badly written laws.

Quote from: riprockInterestingly enough, this sounds a lot like some of my friends used to say, to me and to many other folks: "The common element of all your complaints is you.  Don't complain about the world -- change yourself."

I'd be interested in knowing if the slogan derives from some popular source, perhaps a pop psychology book.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=uSC&q=%22common+element+of+all+your%22+%22is+you%22&btnG=Search

It looks like despair.com may have originated this pithy bit of wisdom.

http://despair.com/dysfunction.html

Quote from: riprockInterestingly enough, this sounds a lot like some of my friends used to say, to me and to many other folks: "The common element of all your complaints is you.  Don't complain about the world -- change yourself."

[...]

Perhaps no laws can make men good.  But that's not the same as saying that all sets of laws are equally good, or that laws can never contribute to human problems.  Some laws really are badly written laws.

You're ignoring the other half of what I said, which is that the common element in all your good games is you, so that if the game is successful it's to your credit. You get the credit and the blame for everything you do. Don't forget the credit part, it's important.

Certainly it's true that some laws are badly-written, or are written with an ill aim in mind. But there's a difference between society's laws and a game system's rules - we've got a GM and players who can adjust the application of the rules constantly, and if they really don't like it, can change it. It's a much faster process than years of court cases and writing to legislators, etc. In good game groups that's exactly what happens, there's a constant adjustment of things, the GM's rulings following the mood of the group, the players working to help make things interesting and reasonable. It requires good will from all.

Rules and laws encourage or discourage certain behaviours, but they don't determine behaviour. They don't create good or ill will. You remain an individual, a human being with free will. Maybe the rules encourage you to be creative, or to fuck up other players, but in the end it's you who decides what to do.

We're all familiar with the player who deliberately designs an annoying character, and when people say they're annoying, says, "but I'm just playing in character!" Yes, the annoying bastard wants extra xp for good roleplaying, too - they want to be rewarded for being annoying. This player is saying that they're obliged to play in a certain way because of what they wrote down somewhere. And of course it's bullshit - they chose what to write down, so they can choose how to play it. They know this, which is why they want the credit for "good roleplaying" while at the same time saying they're not responsible and not accepting the blame for being annoying.

It just doesn't work. Either you're responsible for what you do, in which case you get the credit for roleplaying well an annoying character, but also the blame for making one in the first place; or else you're not responsible for what you do, in which case you get neither credit nor blame for anything. Like an infant.

Likewise, with game rules and a game group. The group chooses which rules to use, they choose how to apply them, and they choose how to behave. The rules encourage or discourage certain play styles, but they don't determine them.

For example, you might say that AD&D1e, by offering xp mostly for killing things and taking their stuff, encouraged you to have your character do nothing but kill things and take their stuff. But it didn't make you do that. You could run your character without having them kill anything at all. Yes, then they wouldn't get much xp. But when is this a disadvantage? If you could bear being 1st level in the first few sessions, why not for several or dozens of sessions? It's only a disadvantage if the other PCs are going up levels, and/or if the GM throws higher-level things at you just as though you had gone up levels.

Now, what's at fault here? The rules which reward you for killing things and taking their stuff? Or is it just a mismatch of game play styles? If everyone in the group is happy with not killing things and taking their stuff, you'll be fine; if you're the only one, you'll be in trouble. So the problem isn't the rules, which are just words on paper; it's the differing play styles of people in the group, and people not adjusting their styles to one another in compromise.

You get the blame for all your failures, and the credit for all your successes. That's part of being an adult.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou're ignoring the other half of what I said, which is that the common element in all your good games is you, so that if the game is successful it's to your credit. You get the credit and the blame for everything you do. Don't forget the credit part, it's important. ...

You get the blame for all your failures, and the credit for all your successes. That's part of being an adult.

Sorry that I didn't give credit to the other half.
So, for the record: your philosophy is logically consistent, fair, and equitable. Your notion of "responsibility" is a perfectly good notion and it will work excellently in many contexts.  Likewise, your "credit" and "blame" are well designed and will work as designed.

I didn't mean to detract from your logic or to imply that it was faulty.  I suspect there's a slight mismatch in our objectives.  You're proposing a forward-looking philosophy for going forward, which is great and very similar to my attitude towards new projects.

When I talk about "bad laws" I'm looking backward to the past, trying to understand how the details went wrong.  In any event, clearly you and I agree on a lot of things.  Let's try to get the relatively small disagreements out to where they can be defined -- let's try to move from Storming to Norming.

QuoteCertainly it's true that some laws are badly-written, or are written with an ill aim in mind. But there's a difference between society's laws and a game system's rules - we've got a GM and players who can adjust the application of the rules constantly, and if they really don't like it, can change it. It's a much faster process than years of court cases and writing to legislators, etc. In good game groups that's exactly what happens, there's a constant adjustment of things, the GM's rulings following the mood of the group, the players working to help make things interesting and reasonable. It requires good will from all.

Rules and laws encourage or discourage certain behaviours, but they don't determine behaviour. They don't create good or ill will. You remain an individual, a human being with free will. Maybe the rules encourage you to be creative, or to fuck up other players, but in the end it's you who decides what to do.
 

First off, we have big points of agreement.  
1) Laws can be ill-written;
2) good will is required from all.
So we agree on that much.

There is one small, possibly insignificant disagreement:I think that some rules have generated ill will.  Several games have come out on the mass market and have been immediately berated by gamers for graphic depictions of rape intended to titillate immature sensibilities.

That's only the extreme, but I find it hard to describe those games without mentioning that the rules created ill will.  

QuoteEither you're responsible for what you do, in which case you get the credit for roleplaying well an annoying character, but also the blame for making one in the first place; or else you're not responsible for what you do, in which case you get neither credit nor blame for anything. Like an infant.

Likewise, with game rules and a game group. The group chooses which rules to use, they choose how to apply them, and they choose how to behave. The rules encourage or discourage certain play styles, but they don't determine them.

I tend to devote attention to other factors that you probably consider irrelevant:

1)The game designers often have had little awareness of play styles.  This seems to be changing somewhat as Internet communication puts designers in touch with player opinion.  Rules which are expressed ambiguously, or which assume the GM will be wise, often lead to game breakups.

2) The players often waste time, money, and enthusiasm discovering misleading aspects of the game that should have been discovered by playtesters.  E.g. The box art and flavor text may completely mismatch the mechanics, and the mechanics themselves may be self-contradictory because the original designer got fired and replaced with someone who ignored quality control.

QuoteFor example, you might say that AD&D1e, by offering xp mostly for killing things and taking their stuff, encouraged you to have your character do nothing but kill things and take their stuff. But it didn't make you do that. You could run your character without having them kill anything at all. ...So the problem isn't the rules, which are just words on paper; it's the differing play styles of people in the group, and people not adjusting their styles to one another in compromise.

If you've got a system that can *teach* people how to adjust, how to compromise, how to be sensitive to play style, etc. then by all means test it on a few play groups and publish the results on a wiki or other convenient medium.

Actually, I'm not sure if you're the author of:
http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/Storming

But I presume you won't mind if I quote a bit:

QuoteOne problem is often that people's expressed conflicts are not the fundamental conflicts. The Anna-Bob conflict in the example is expressed as a conflict about the rules of magic, but fundamentally it's about whether there should be any magic at all. So long as Anna and Bob only talk about house rules, they will never resolve their conflict.

This is a *huge* problem with many gaming groups.  Badly written rules and metaplot exacerbate it because they make it even harder to get past the expressed conflict into the fundamental conflict.

If a Cheetoist can say, "Yes, I know people, I can teach them how to get past Storming into Norming," then I'll wave the Cheetoist flag. If, on the other hand, Cheetoists can only say, "Some people are successful at adjusting play styles and making compromises and others aren't," I'm skeptical of Cheetoism.

Regardless of whether Cheetoism gets my flag-wave, my current position is that badly written rules exacerbate Storming and make it harder to get to Norming and Performing.  

I'm somewhat disappointed with:
http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/Performing

QuoteIn Tuckman's original analysis, a work project group was "performing" when it was achieving its goals as given it by its manager. But a roleplaying group, being a voluntary social group, sets its own goals. So what is "performing", each group has to decide for itself. Here the Player Preferences Questionnaire may be useful - everyone can decide what they want, then the group can go off and get it.

I like the questionnaire.  I might even print up some copies for my GURPS group.  I had hoped there would be a little more empirical work already done under the Cheetoist banner.

Note that the Cheetoist wiki is advocating empirical surveys at a group level -- one GM surveying four to six players.

I think the empirical approach *is* being used by non-Cheetoists, at a game design level.  WotC seems to survey its thousands of customers and try to design games to eliminate customer complaints while retaining customer satisfaction.  

I should edit this and make it more concise, but I am out of time and I have to run.  Sorry for the long post.

I am indeed the authour of that Cheetoism stuff, but bear in mind it's a work under construction, or else I'd be publishing it for money.

It tries to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. I think that many people, accustomed to the side conflicts we have to avoid the actual issues of conflict, think of conflict as pointless, so they try to avoid it. In terms of that process, they get a sniff of a storm and retreat back into forming, or else the storm breaks the group apart.

So even without any recommendations on how to resolve those conflicts, I think that if,

• you know that some conflicts will be inevitable
• you know that sometimes the conflicts will be side ones, trying to avoid the real conflict, and
• you know that conflict can be productive and move you from storming into norming, so that you actually achieve something,

just being aware of those things helps you deal with the conflicts, even without any specific advice. To my mind, it's like the way we train firefighters with real flames, or soldiers with blanks - because the natural human instinct when encountering fire or hearing gunshots is often to freeze up, so having even that little taste of it means that when you encounter the real thing, you don't panic.

Likewise, if you're aware of that stuff about conflicts, it'll make it easy to deal with them, so you won't get stuck on the side ones or avoid them entirely.

That doesn't mean that specific advice can't be useful, of course. Nonetheless, teaching people to adjust, to compromise, to be sensitive to others' needs and desires - I think that's beyond the scope of any rpg system, or even of a play style description and advice thing, like Cheetoism is supposed to be. It's basic human social skills, and I think the process of running or playing in a campaign is a better teacher of that than any words on a page.

It's good to be descriptive and inspirational. For example you mentioned the player preferences questionnaire - I always emphasise, that's not definitive. You could as well use the signs of the zodiac, colours of the rainbow or whatever. The point is that if you just ask people, "what do you like?" they tend to go blank, but if you can ask them, "do you like this, or that? This thing, or the other?" then even if they completely reject those categories, it gets people talking. And if people are talking about what they like, then they're more likely to get it.

The Cheeotist surveys aren't empirical, in the first place because they don't use categories and descriptors with precisely-defined meanings, and secondly because they're talking self-reporting. For example, I find that almost every gamer says that character personality and relationships are very important to them - even the gamers who just go "Hulk smash!" in play. That's because that character stuff is what people think of when they think of "roleplaying" and nobody likes to think of themselves as being just a munchkin, or whatever.

An empirical survey would look at what players actually do in play, not what they say they like. That's why no play style questionnaire or categories of gamers as "Butt-Kickers", "Method Actors" or whatever is empirical - it's just a way of starting a conversation or thinking about play styles. It's description and inspiration, it's not measurement.

I don't understand why you're disappointed with a description of "performing" as being defined by the people themselves. Certainly that section needs expanding, but the fact is that what you think is a cool game session may seem lame to me, or vice versa. Fun is individual and subjective.

I still don't see why rules, badly-written or otherwise, help or hinder this. Seeing what the real conflict is and dealing with it productively, that's about your powers of perception, how proud you are and willing to compromise, social skills in general, and so on. Expecting rpg rules to make up for lack of social skills is like expecting soccer rules to make up for clumsy and unfit people.

We've got a social creative hobby. People with poor social or creative skills will do poorly at it, but keeping at it will improve their social skills and creativity. Same as for football - it's a physical hobby, so people with poor physiques will do poorly at it, but keeping at it will make them fitter. To get better at soccer, play more soccer; to get better at roleplaying and working with other gamers, play more rpgs, and don't give up at the first argument.

One of the gamers in my group at the moment is a schoolteacher, and he reckons that a good part of "intelligence" is just effort, just being willing to try, to keep at something, to pay attention. I think the same's true of "emotional intelligence", or social skills. But those are a pretty broad thing, and rpg rules are specific. Soccer rules don't tell me what to do if I'm fat, slow and clumsy.

Quote from: alexandroa) Players do challenge what the GM says and therefore must also do a fair part judging- they just find most of what the GM says appropriate and don't challenge it, unless something really weird and out-of-sync with the setting (being killed by a cow falling from space- which might, on the other hand, be totally appropriate in a game of Toon) happens.

b) Most players are able to exercise creative restraint and avoid content, which might offend the other players (unless they know exactly they are not going to be offended).

c) The best games are those, where all participants contribute something to the game in interesting and unforeseen ways.

d) Severely limiting the options a player has of adding something to the game (i.e. instead of being limited to the actions his character could take, he is limited to the actions his character could take, which make sense in the context of a stifling character concept) reduces the chances of c) happening.

e) Expanding the options a player has of adding something to the game (i.e. the player plays not just his character, but also decides how the NPCs react to him or somesuch) isn't something which inherently reduces the quality of the game, unless the players are incapable of b).

f) The concept of the GM being the "alpha" of the group also fails, if the players are incapable of b).

This is all very reasonable, though again the GM role is part of the fiction, or perhaps esthetic, of playing an RPG in a certain style.

More important, (b)-(e), and especially (e) do not seem to be written with an awareness of the importance of challenge or character immersion to certain styles of play. "Expanding the options a player has of contributing" does inherently reduce the quality of the game for those styles, if you're not careful about when & how you do it. E.g., if you're playing for challenge, and you choose a game which "expands your options" to the point that obstacles can easily be overcome by freestyle narration, or by trivial mechanics, or some combination (spend a point or roll dice to get narration rights for a scene), then the quality of the game suffers.

And even if the game has challenging "narration" mechanics, the quality of the game will suffer if players enjoy approaching the game from the perspective of their characters. E.g., supposing the conflict mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard was tactically "deep" (it does have a few nuances, but let's say it was on the order of Whist), it might satisfy some challenge-oriented players but it would harm character-immersion-oriented players because the mechanics and dice-tactics bear little relation to the actions and tactics they represent. Furthermore if the mechanic or the social arrangement of authority is such that a player can "make things happen" well outside their character's reach--such as being able to bring into being the fact that the preacher is secretly the father of the adulteress's child--then the player's sense of interacting with the world through their character's agency may be harmed.

QuoteAll rules encourage miscommunication.

Quite, but here I do get the point that's made in some circles, in fact it's really nothing new, that removing or reshaping certain types of rules can improve communication. E.g., the D&D XP system, as written, does make it easy for players to pull in the direction of "experience grubbing"--ignoring anything in the game world except finding things to kill and stuff to loot. While if you remove that, the idea of improving your character through simple kill & loot, without regard to other elements of the game, loses mechanical "traction". (If people think that the BRP system, say, is still subject to "experience grubbing"--and it can be--then you can go another step and remove experience altogether as in Traveller. At that point "improvement" is only the things that the group collectively and consciously wants and allows to be brought into the world.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenMore important, (b)-(e), and especially (e) do not seem to be written with an awareness of the importance of challenge or character immersion to certain styles of play. "Expanding the options a player has of contributing" does inherently reduce the quality of the game for those styles, if you're not careful about when & how you do it. E.g., if you're playing for challenge, and you choose a game which "expands your options" to the point that obstacles can easily be overcome by freestyle narration, or by trivial mechanics, or some combination (spend a point or roll dice to get narration rights for a scene), then the quality of the game suffers.

"More options" doesn't mean "all the options" or even "all possible types of options".
You are spot on with your assessment, that you got to know which playstyle you cater to, with the options you are giving.
You might have a game whose rules allows gamers to have a challenging game AND a good narration AND an immersive experience...etc., by its rules, but having all these things happen at the same time...fat chance on that.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNonetheless, teaching people to adjust, to compromise, to be sensitive to others' needs and desires - I think that's beyond the scope of any rpg system, or even of a play style description and advice thing, like Cheetoism is supposed to be. It's basic human social skills, and I think the process of running or playing in a campaign is a better teacher of that than any words on a page.

Here's a point of substantial difference: I claim that running and playing a campaign with bad rules is likely to impair development of those social skills, particularly if the personal chemistry of the players isn't harmonious.

You and I have obscure philosophical and semantic differences, but those aren't worth the debate.  You and I have more important fish to fry, such as which social skills should be taught and which shouldn't.

However "social skill" opens up a huge field of debate, and we probably need to make an effort to stay semi-focused.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe point is that if you just ask people, "what do you like?" they tend to go blank, but if you can ask them, "do you like this, or that? This thing, or the other?" then even if they completely reject those categories, it gets people talking. And if people are talking about what they like, then they're more likely to get it.

The Cheeotist surveys aren't empirical,....

An empirical survey would look at what players actually do in play,...It's description and inspiration, it's not measurement.

Actually, in reference to storming that is encouraged by bad rules, it struck me that the Mage group I saw self-destruct over Mage rules went to a lot of effort to talk out its preferences before it started -- however the communication was highly impaired.

When I say I want empiricism, I mean I will wave the flag of any play-style that  works in practice.  This is a philosophical side-track;  I could start a long boring rant about assumptions, frames, ideologies, etc. and that would derail the discussion.  The bottom line is I don't want to sign up for Cheetoism and then find that it doesn't give any improvements to my actual gaming experience.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't understand why you're disappointed with a description of "performing" as being defined by the people themselves. Certainly that section needs expanding, but the fact is that what you think is a cool game session may seem lame to me, or vice versa. Fun is individual and subjective.

I still don't see why rules, badly-written or otherwise, help or hinder this.

In the case of Mage, I think the rules were written by people who were trying to speak in jargon so as to produce a "culture of celebrity" or "political correctness" or "a cult of personality" or whatever one wants to call it.  They set up the terms of the discussion so as to impair communication.

I think Mage was written by intellectually dishonest persons, who were addicted to deceiving themselves, and that rubbed off on the thinking.  But that's a rant that deserves a detailed analysis, in its own thread.

The bottom line for this thread is that I think badly written rules in the case of Mage encouraged storming leading to disintegration, because they encouraged disputation, posing, and frivolity rather than listening honestly and speaking clearly.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSeeing what the real conflict is and dealing with it productively, that's about your powers of perception, how proud you are and willing to compromise, social skills in general, and so on. Expecting rpg rules to make up for lack of social skills is like expecting soccer rules to make up for clumsy and unfit people.
... Soccer rules don't tell me what to do if I'm fat, slow and clumsy.

No, but if you're a soccer coach, you can spot the players who will have trouble and oversee their development.  You can give them activities that won't sap their motivation by frustrating them.

RPGs are often something bearing more resemblance to a viral marketing campaign than to soccer. Exploitative designers are more concerned with their ego-boosting than with whether the game gets played and satisfies the players.

Quote from: alexandro"More options" doesn't mean "all the options" or even "all possible types of options".
You are spot on with your assessment, that you got to know which playstyle you cater to, with the options you are giving.

In that case I think we're in complete agreement; it was rather the language of (e) which didn't seem to acknowledge any kind of limitation other than (b).

Quote from: riprockThe bottom line is I don't want to sign up for Cheetoism and then find that it doesn't give any improvements to my actual gaming experience.

There's nothing to sign up for. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell you how to play your game, it describes how games are often played, and some of the things that go wrong. Forewarned is forearmed, if you know the sorts of problems which will pop up, you're less likely to be stunned into inaction or panic when you meet them.

It's gamer anthropology, not gamer sociology. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

People often blame the rules for their own failings.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere's nothing to sign up for. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell you how to play your game, it describes how games are often played, and some of the things that go wrong. Forewarned is forearmed, if you know the sorts of problems which will pop up, you're less likely to be stunned into inaction or panic when you meet them.

It's gamer anthropology, not gamer sociology. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

People often blame the rules for their own failings.

It sounds to me like you're contradicting yourself, although you and I seem to use words differently, so I could be misreading you.

(Edit: Past experience indicates that when I have no concrete disagreement with someone, but his philosophy seems self-contradictory, there's a major communication gap causing me to entirely misread him.   That's probably happening here.)

If I sign up for your ideas, I sign up for a particular set of standards for blaming and crediting.  The nature of blaming, complaining, etc. can rapidly get too philosophical for a gaming discussion.  (In fact, I started the thread at:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7881

so I could keep the philosophy of this issue separate from the gaming.)

Maybe I'm confusing Cheetoism with your (Kyle's) personal perspective.

If Cheetoism is descriptive, when it says, "We game for the snacks, etc." does it mean, "We, the self-avowed Cheetoists, are gaming for the snacks, but maybe other gamers game for something else" or does it mean, "Everyone who games is really gaming for the snacks, whether they know it or not"?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere's nothing to sign up for. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. ...
People often blame the rules for their own failings.

I think I'm reading many of your statements as prescriptive.  You seem to be saying that some people should blame themselves, some people should terminate piss-weak friendships -- those are actions which should be done, thus your stance looks prescriptive.

However, the prescriptive stance is not necessarily Cheetoism.  That may be the point of difference.

To be clear, the prescription comes with the non-game things. I'l tell people what to do with their lives but I'd never tell them what to do with their game! :D

Quote from: riprockIf Cheetoism is descriptive, when it says, "We game for the snacks, etc." does it mean, "We, the self-avowed Cheetoists, are gaming for the snacks, but maybe other gamers game for something else" or does it mean, "Everyone who games is really gaming for the snacks, whether they know it or not"?

The first one, though actually the people come first; food is a shared experience which brings people together, it's the snacky means to the social end.

"We game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories."

I add emphasis here for clarity.

If people say they're gaming for something else - group therapy or education or whatever - I believe them. They're crazy to want that, but the craziness is not a delusional one where they think they want X but really want Y.

It's a bit mixed-up, really. At the moment you've got two things over on the pbwiki. One is Why Game Groups Fuck Up which is almost entirely descriptive, and the only prescriptions are humanistic ones - "you're responsible for what you do, you should talk to people about what you want", and so on.

And then there's "Cheetoism" which is a jokey way of presenting that for most gamers it's social first, game second they can have a good game session with a crap game if they get along with one another, but cannot have anything but a crap session with an excellent game if they don't get along. Just as fitness and co-ordination are a prerequisite to good football performance, the group getting along well is a prerequisite to good roleplaying.

Cheetoism is really just the standard flying over the troops of Why Game Groups Fuck Up. They fuck up because they don't get along well. So the body of the thing is looking at what sort of things cause people to not get along well, what are their disagreements about, who gets ignored because they're quiet, and so on.

That's the stuff that gets prescription, people dealing with people. I'm not going to pop up and say that because you like the leotard-wearing improv theatre style better than the viking hat-wearing miniatures battles style, or vice versa, that you're brain-damaged; nor am I going to say that you can't have a bit of both in your game sessions. But I will pop up to say, "You say you're unhappy with how your game sessions are going. Have you talked to the others?" The stuff sounds obvious when you say it but looking at what people actually do in their lives, it mustn't really be obvious to them.

A lot of the rpg theories out there are really just an elaborate rationalisation of Your Favourite Game Suxxorz, Mine Roxxorz. This is more of an attempt to look at what most gamers actually do. And most gamers find their most enjoyable game experiences when they get along well with the other people in the group, share meals, have a few laughs and tell some tall stories.

The other thing to bear in mind is as I keep saying, it's a work in progress. So naturally it doesn't all fit together perfectly neatly at the moment.

Y'know: I popped into this thread because of the tagline. I'm a proponent of the GM/Player World/Character split thing, so this sort of discussion should, by all rights, facinate me.

Instead I get some bizzare diatribe that, and pardon the term, was utterly incoherent and huge walls of text about cheetoism.  Kudos to those of you who had the patience and whatnot to actually read and dissect the OP. Maybe I worked too late last night, but I gave up around the 'skin of cheese part' the first time, and sighed stupidly around the adopted by orcs part the second time. Its not worth a third go around for me.

Alexandro: If you want to start a nice good debate/discussion on this entire topic feel free to try again. Only, this time try to make some sort of sense. Drooling babbling idiot arguements are wearying. If I pass out and go to sleep trying to read your drivel it means I don't actually... you know... post. And if I don't post then you have nothing to respond to. Then Jimbo comes in with his wall of text posts about snackfoods and anthropology, and I'm guessing at least one potshot at Americans somewhere in there and no one wants that.   Swear. Half the time he could get by with a simple 'Kyle Aaron Post Here.'  and we'd all get it.

Nothin' but love for ya, Jimmy, but man you do go on.... If I ever make it to Australia, I'll be sure to stop by for a beer and let you lecture me on how typically american I'm acting. ;)

I have to give credit where credit is due.  From my fuzzy memory, I don't think he ripped the US once in this thread.

The secret is out, now. If you want to keep Kyle away from pot-shots at the US, get him on the Cheetoism track. :)

All in good fun, Kyle.  All in good fun.

@Spike: feel free to start a new thread, if you feel the need for further discussion (I lost track of the 'Cheetoism-Connection' myself- that stuff is between Kyle and riprock).

Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=147831&postcount=22) is the rundown of the argument in list-form, rather than in prose.

Around two years ago I sat down and wrote out a 'Manifesto' of sorts that pretty heavily laid down the law, as far as I was concerned, with where GM authority ended and began. Mind you, I GM more than I play, so I wasn't really lashing out to attack GMs.

I don't have a link handy, it was on RPG.net and created a nice little thread for a couple of days, but here is how I've always seen it.

The GM's authority ends where the character begins. Literally. But ONLY the character.

Players can write up any backstory they want. They can add a hundred aunts and uncles if they want.  But: they have no authority over those NPCs they made up (caveat: if they are explicitely part of the character (GURPS:Dependents, etc) then the player has a certain authority over them, yes. Often that is defined by the method by which they become part of the character...).  Now, a good player, and a good GM will allow some flex to account for backstory.  If I take my 'Spikes World' that I've posted about here and put a player into it, I, as the GM do not expect the player to master the setting before writing a backstory. Ideally, the backstory, if any, is flexible enough to allow for tweaking to fit. If not, well, I am a good GM in that I can certainly find room to tweak the setting.  No orks in the Sea of Grass (there are, by the way), well, maybe there is this one tribe everyone overlooks.  

The idea that the GM has authority over the character up until the start of play is, to me, absurd.  As the GM I have the right to say 'well, this campaign is about villagers from Homlet'. and expect the players, who are not asshats, not to bring ninja's from outer space. But that has nothing to do with what it appears you are suggesting.  If A player brings me a penniless drunkard noble who is not from Homlet, I might be swayed to allow the guy to be a destituite wanderer who washed up a few years/months/whatever back and is now part of the village.  Likewise, I won't say there isn't a blacksmith(or that the blacksmith couldn't have 8 sons... say if everyone wanted to be the blacksmith) or anything else reasonable. I merely set the stage of the campaign, the PC's are up to the players.

That's not rules or even a violation of authority lines vis a vis my manifesto. That's part and parcel of dealing with other people as members of a group.

but again: even with your list I'm not entirely certain I've got what ever the fuck it was you were trying to say. Then again, I'm chronically tired from three weeks of work without a decent weekend.  I might be getting stupider.

I think the division is between mission-style-play and character-motivated-play.

In the former it makes no difference, if the GM owns the NPCs, because he presents the players with tangible problems, that exist outside of their characters backstories (although said backstories might be what gets them into these "missions" in the first place). The latter, a style I have come to enjoy, is based on the assumption, that the players and the world are interconnected and what happens to the former, also happens to the latter: if a member of the thieves guild is found guilty of assassinating the king, than the character is removed from power as head of said thieves guild. The character concept changes from "head of thieves guild" to "ex"- a significant change. Now the player would be right to bitch about this, if he had no way to affect the outcome. He wouldn't bitch, if he wouldn't have been head of said guild- because the assassination of the king wouldn't have affected his character otherwise. Heck, there is a reason of GM-advice cautioning against having high-level-thief steal all the equipment of the PCs while they sleep, because even in the former mission-style-approach the equipment is considered part of the character (even though its really part of the world).

Now, all the above-mentioned examples are examples that could happen in the world, but (usually) don't for a reason. And this reason is that (in most RPGs) characters are the players only tools for affecting the game world. But there is a difference between theoretical freedom of action and real freedom of action. If you could take any action with your character, but wouldn't affect the outcome, than the GM isn't running a RPG (since RPGs are defined by the interaction of the participants). The choice is illusionary.

So the players has limited resources (his character) to achieve certain results in the game-world (like becoming head of the thieves guild). The GM has unlimited resources (the whole world) to undo anything the player achieves (or simply grant it to him, which is just as unsatisfying). A good GM tries to engineer his resources in such a way, that they are balanced, allowing the player to tip them in either direction with his character.

To come back full-circle: player goals and character goals might differ.
What a character wants is not always what a player wants (or what a player wants right away). So being aware of player wants and adapting your campaign world to suit them.
"We want to slay the dragon plaguing the countryside." might mean anything from: "We want to get into a highly tactical dungeon, where we need our wits to survive and have thrilling fight at the end." to "I want my character struggling to overcome his fear of dragons and win the respect of his father." or even "I want the damn dragon gone, because I don't want to risk losing [insert NPC name here] to him. It is an annoying monster anyway." and the adventure would play out in a decidedly different way (i.e.: the second goal would be defeated, if the whole adventure takes place in an underground complex, where no one can see how the character behaves and where he can't interact with anyone, with the third goal it would simply annoy the players, if taking the dragon down takes way to long).

Being aware of these expectations goes a long way to adapting your campaign world, but frankly, its impossible to be aware of the all the time. People screw up. Losing is part of the roleplaying GAME. The key is being flexible enough to incorporate the ideas of your players and not sticking to the "I said it, its final"-shtick.
That's all.

Also see here (http://gamecraft.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=306&start=0) (mainly the posts by Daniel Wood, but the whole thread has some good observations).

Alexandro, I think I see where you're going with this but first--could you please try formatting your posts a little more carefully? Don't hit return after each sentence, and hit return twice between paragraphs. It'll make it a lot easier to read.

Anyway, instead of your mission-style vs. character-motivated play, there was once a trend in Usenet discussion to speak of "world-based" vs. "character-based" play. The former is maybe a little different from mission-style. I'd say it works from the assumption that the characters are motivated...they're just motivated in ways that facilitate immediate interaction with the world the GM has created.

The classic example is dungeon exploration. I had some difficulty explaining recently the attraction of a dungeon adventure with low-level Basic D&D characters: how do you engage in terms of really caring about what your character does, when your character is (a) pretty likely to die, and (b) easily replaceable? The answer, I think, is to see low-level dungeon play as being not about the character, but about the dungeon. But in order for the "dungeon experience" to be fully realized & appreciated, you [the player] need to be engaged in trying to explore, overcome, and survive. Therefore when you play those 1st-level chumps, they behave as if they care about living, dying, and gaining loot even though you as a player shouldn't be too attached to them.

However where "world-based" starts to diverge from the sense conjured by the words "mission style" is that many or most of people who advocate for "GM creates the world" don't see this as contradicting the idea that the adaptation of PC with world, during play, is a two-way street. PCs will do stuff that shapes the world around them, in big or small ways.

So the "division" is often a bit more nuanced, concerning methods & timing. Way over at one end you've got the crypto-novelist GM who has not only a whole world planned but a sequence of events that are both unchangeable and the intended single focus of play. Over at the other and you've got players who write pages of backstory about their characters and expect it to be incorporated. (Like insisting or writing in a detailed tribal origin that clashes with the GM's world, instead of looking for a suitable place in the world that's already there.)

In between you have questions as I said of method & timing. E.g., GM proposes a general campaign idea, players suggest elements they would like to see incorporated, GM fits them in. This may include customizing campaign elements to accommodate specific characters. ("I want a space ninja" becomes "Let's play a game where space ninjas are integral to the setting & theme.") But once that's done, the game is run in a fairly "traditional" manner. OR you might have a game/group where setting and backstory are far more plastic and the players either get to improvise facts into existence, or the GM is expected to do same in reaction to player initiatives.

Personally I'm toying with the idea of running a game in a manner that I think would slyly transition from GM-creates the world to collaborative world-building to immersive exploration. The idea, which could be expressed either as formal rules or as informal practices, would be to begin with a unified, fixed vision, the "GM's world" or world from some sort of sourcebook. Two variations follow.

a) The players create characters in conformity with the world--no "space ninjas". However, an initial phase of play or pregame would be played fairly freely, under assumptions that PCs are generally successful and never fail in a way that takes them out of the game. The idea here is that the things a player does right out of the gate are in a sense an effort to create the character they really want to play, as opposed to the limited character you get from the basic chargen system. You could see this sort of like fast-forwarding through low-level D&D. Not skipping in a sort of point-based-chargen fashion: fast-forwarding in something more like a lifepath fashion.

b) The players create characters without worrying about conforming to the world. Perhaps "space ninjas" are still off the table, but let's look at "ork from the sea of grass" when the GM has already determined there aren't any. Spike suggests accommodating this by allowing there to be an insignificant tribe. I suggest instead, under this approach, the GM will interpret the divergence from the baseline setting as indicating a historical event. The logical conclusion: orks weren't found in the sea of grass until a generation ago, but now they've invaded and the rest of the campaign is also impacted.

In effect, either way you're taking elements that the players normally think of us their province (chargen and character actions) and using those to produce a world that integrates their baseline hopes & expectations for play. But at that point, you have a foundation for ongoing play with a traditional distribution of authority, which provides the "push back" from the setting that's needed for challenge and character-immersion.