Quote from: jdrakehActually, no -- in traditional RPGs, the GM still adjudicated the outcome of those rolls, not the player. I think that is what Pundit's point was. When you make a successful diplomacy roll in D&D 3x, for example, your character succeeds -- the DM is still the one who decides how they succeed.

Sure!  The mechanics determine some constraints on what kind of thing must happen (the intimidation check was won by five Snurfles, so clearly the bad guys aren't going to just stand there and scoff ... they gotta be scared somehow) and then the GM narrates the outcome within those constraints.

I'm just ... how is that different from conflict resolution systems where the stakes determine some constraints and then the GM narrates the outcome within those constraints?

Now a game (like Capes or (I'm pretty sure) Donjon) where winning the conflict gives the player the right to wholly take over narration?  Sure.  That's diverging from the traditional PC/GM paradigm.  No argument.

But DitV (for instance) where the player gets to say "My stakes are that he's really fuckin' impressed and turns from his heathen ways to follow the King of Life," but then the GM gets to decide how he turns, and what kind of follower the ex-heathen becomes?  Where's the difference?

Quote from: jdrakehIn these games, the players react to a story, they don't help create it.

Ummm...huh?

How are players directing their characters, deciding where to go and what to do, only reacting and not creating?

Quote from: TonyLBhow is that different from conflict resolution systems where the stakes determine some constraints and then the GM narrates the outcome within those constraints?

No no no. Please no.  You did not just bring up "conflict resolution."

And if you're telling me there's no difference between a player determining the stakes and the GM determining the stakes, it's going to be hard to come to any kind of common understanding.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd if you're telling me there's no difference between a player determining the stakes and the GM determining the stakes, it's going to be hard to come to any kind of common understanding.

Of course there's a difference.  There's also a difference between games played in a basement and games played in a pub.  But those differences are not necessarily relevant to the question of GM and player roles, right?

If the argument here is that giving players the chance to directly seek (through the rules) some outcome other than the ones written into the rules (like "he's scared" outcomes that are written into the descriptions of the "intimidate" skill) undermines the entire traditional GM/player paradigm then ... okay.  Let's hear that.  Right now, I think that's a largely unconnected question, but I'm open to becoming convinced that it's central.  I've never heard it argued in quite that fashion before.

EDIT:  I'm inclined to worry that this tangent is far enough from the original topic that it deserves its own thread ... though, at the same time, it's hard to discuss "Are Forge games in rebellion against the traditional GM/player divide" if everyone has radically different senses of what that traditional divide is.  Split off?  Stay in the same thread?  Any thoughts?

Quote from: jdrakehPersonally, I prefer that players have some authorial control. Having to rely solely on dice and my GM to interpret the results of dice rolls fairly has lead to some of the worst campaigns I've ever played in. In games that utilize the traditional paradigm, if your GM is a clueless dickhead, the campaign is doomed.

I'd rather rely on a game where the enjoyment depends on one guy, ostensibly the guy most suited to the job, not being a clueless dickhead; then the alternative, which is a game where the enjoyment depends on four, five, or six guys not being clueless dickheads because any one of them has the power to fuck up the entire game and no one has the authority to fix it or stop said dickhead.

QuoteIn games where players have some authorial control, players can often ensure they're having enough fun that the campaign need not be declared a total loss.

Yeah, or primma donna players can steal everyone else's fun, or one jackass player can ruin the GM's concept because "he can".

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBBut DitV (for instance) where the player gets to say "My stakes are that he's really fuckin' impressed and turns from his heathen ways to follow the King of Life," but then the GM gets to decide how he turns, and what kind of follower the ex-heathen becomes?  Where's the difference?

There's a huge difference. That's already not an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBIf the argument here is that giving players the chance to directly seek (through the rules) some outcome other than the ones written into the rules (like "he's scared" outcomes that are written into the descriptions of the "intimidate" skill) undermines the entire traditional GM/player paradigm then ... okay.  Let's hear that.  Right now, I think that's a largely unconnected question, but I'm open to becoming convinced that it's central.  I've never heard it argued in quite that fashion before.

If the GM doesn't have the authority to say "NO, he fucking doesn't turn to the goddamned magic deer/king of life"; then that's a HUGE difference. Suddenly, the buck doesn't stop with the GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: apparition13What do you mean by "a strong procedure for play"?

droog mentions DitV, MLwM and Sorcerer, but doesn't place them with "traditional" games, which he classifies as GM only. Where would you place them according to the fuzzy categories from above? How about the other games?

Well, hold hard! Sorcerer, at least, is really indistinguishable from any game you might class as traditional, unless you take Ron's advice for how to run the game, and follow it. Even then, it's not necessarily different from anything some GM might do in a game. So I'll play Sorcerer if run as written, but otherwise it's a game like any other. And I think I've already established that I'm a tough customer when it comes to roleplaying.

So it's not necessarily the game, it's the way it's run. You could take any game I'm familiar with and apply the principles of Sorcerer's GM prep, for example. I've done some of that myself with HQ.

DitV is written more accessibly than Sorcerer, and the text is much clearer about its aims. Just about anybody can run a decent game of DitV. But let's be clear: Vincent didn't reinvent any wheels; he took what some GMs did already, codified it, refined it, made it repeatable and turned it up to 11.

Note that DitV comes after a whole bunch of discussion on the Forge and after MLwM, which is highly structured in a way unlike either Sorcerer or DitV. But the lessons had been learned: a solid procedure of play gets everybody on the same page and tells both the GM and the players what they have to do (cf. Donjon and Paladin as referenced by James).

Does that make it clearer? A procedure of play is what you do when you play. If the book doesn't do it for you, you work it out for yourself.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd rather rely on a game where the enjoyment depends on one guy, ostensibly the guy most suited to the job, not being a clueless dickhead; then the alternative, which is a game where the enjoyment depends on four, five, or six guys not being clueless dickheads because any one of them has the power to fuck up the entire game and no one has the authority to fix it or stop said dickhead.

Is that what you think of your present group?

Quote from: RPGPunditI'd rather rely on a game where the enjoyment depends on one guy, ostensibly the guy most suited to the job, not being a clueless dickhead; then the alternative, which is a game where the enjoyment depends on four, five, or six guys not being clueless dickheads because any one of them has the power to fuck up the entire game and no one has the authority to fix it or stop said dickhead.

Hyperbole much? You seem to be confusing "some authorial control" with "total control of the entire game" -- that's not what I meant. I meant, very specifically, "some authorial control" (stuff like the Dramatic Editing mechanic of Adventure!).

QuoteYeah, or primma donna players can steal everyone else's fun, or one jackass player can ruin the GM's concept because "he can".

This is the kind of clueless dickheadery that I was talking about. The odds of either of these things happening are just as great as the odds of a given GM placing his own enjoyment above that of the other players at all costs.

Quote from: James J SkachHow are players directing their characters, deciding where to go and what to do, only reacting and not creating?

In many games that utilize the traditional paradigm, the story is already spelled out before actual play begins (D&D's adventure modules are, perhaps, the definitive example of pre-scripted stories).

PCs feel their way through the story though, ultimately, the only action that they can take which keeps the adventure from progressing as written is dying before they can complete it.

Free will is, in many games that adhere to the traditional paradigm, an illusion. Players can take actions, though events will progress as the module/adventure dictates, not as the players do.

The players have no real say in how thw world develops, or how NPCs act or react to their actions -- they can't do much to change the pre-scripted plot. Players are actors, not authors.

Now, that said, this isn't necessarily true -- but it is how most traditional games are set up to operate by default.

Quote from: TonyLBBut DitV (for instance) where the player gets to say "My stakes are that he's really fuckin' impressed and turns from his heathen ways to follow the King of Life," but then the GM gets to decide how he turns, and what kind of follower the ex-heathen becomes?  Where's the difference?

I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. In the DitV example above, for instance, you have the player specifically defining what happens when he's successful. In traditional games, the player doesn't get to do this. At all. He says "I want to try and influence this guy" not "If successful, I influence this guy and he's not only impressed, he gives up his heathen ways!" -- in the traditional game, that is entirely up to the GM.

Uh ... James ... entirely up to the GM?

Like, I can use my Intimidate skill on a guy, and get a spectacular success, and the GM can say "And the result is that he develops chitinous armor"?  Or even "And the result is that he holds you in contempt and shoos you away"?

I'm pretty sure (though maybe we're further apart in opinion than I thought) that the GM gets to make decisions within a framework set out by the rules.  The rules say "Given this result, the guy is Intimidated ... work with that."

I totally get that there's a difference between the GM having to deal with certain very specific constraints that are established in the rules ahead of time, as opposed to having to deal with constraints that the players hand him on the spot ... but the GM's narration is constrained in either case, isn't it?

Quote from: SRDA successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe.

Bluff was the skill that let you determine NPCs reactions.

I'm not sure spreading around the GM powers would ever be ideal.  I think the overlap between what each GM wants would get in the way even more than it would have if you didn't have the power.

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... James ... entirely up to the GM?

You know what I meant, Tony. Not that the wild hyperoble and subsequent strawman wasn't amusing.

Quote... but the GM's narration is constrained in either case, isn't it?

This isn't the issue being discussed. The issue being discussed isn't the restriction of GM narrative authority, but the imbuing of players with such authority. Traditional games don't do this.

Traditional games do not imbue players other than the GM with narrative authority. In such games, that authority is solely the domain of the GM, per the rules. You're going out of your way to avoid discussing and/or acknowledging this, but there it is.

Again, the issue isn't the limitation of GM control, but in allowing other players to assume duties reserved solely for the GM in traditional games.

Quote from: jdrakehIn the DitV example above, for instance, you have the player specifically defining what happens when he's successful.In traditional games, the player doesn't get to do this. At all. He says "I want to try and influence this guy" not "If successful, I influence this guy and he's not only impressed, he gives up his heathen ways!" -- in the traditional game, that is entirely up to the GM.

What would be wrong with "I want to talk this guy into giving up his heathen ways", even in the traditional context? That's simply the player being more specific about what the character is attempting to do.

Quote from: jdrakehTraditional games do not imbue players other than the GM with narrative authority. In such games, that authority is solely the domain of the GM, per the rules. You're going out of your way to avoid discussing and/or acknowledging this, but there it is.

I don't want to get into this romance with you and Tony, but I think this is questionable. I think it's truer to say that narrative authority is a big grey area in many games.