Very differently, apparently.

Let's say it's Greyhawk Castle, and we hear footsteps and want to hide.

Rather than "we hide behind the tapestry" or "we hide behind the table" or "we hide behind the pillar," we used to say "What can we hide behind?"

It makes our intentions clear without having to worry about what we want to hide behind.

Likewise "I jump behind the bar and look for something I can use as a weapon."

If somebody started shitting themselves because there wasn't a shotgun back there, it would be game over for the night.  If you want a shotgun back there so fucking bad, run the game yourself.

Quote from: Tod13;860184My players play the same way as you and I. Except, they may decide it would be fun to paint the walls of the bar pink, and have an in-character reason for this that fits their characters and the story. (Hmm. Didn't Clint Eastwood do that in one movie?)

High Plains Drifter, but it was red.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860194I guess the thing is, I never say "I jump behind the bar and grab the shotgun." because I'm not immersing in the assumptions in my head.  I say "I jump behind the bar, and look for a weapon." because my character doesn't know whether there is one or not, he hopes there is, but I'm immersed in the reality of the setting, which is not subject to my whims.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860241Let's say it's Greyhawk Castle, and we hear footsteps and want to hide.

Rather than "we hide behind the tapestry" or "we hide behind the table" or "we hide behind the pillar," we used to say "What can we hide behind?"

It makes our intentions clear without having to worry about what we want to hide behind.

Grammar seems a trivial thing to pay attention to, until it isn't. The difference in grammatical construction in these examples highlights a significant difference in play style.
   

• I hide behind the drapes. vs What can I hide behind?
• I hit the orc or I hit the orc in the head. vs I swing at the orc or I swing at the orc's head.
• I jump behind the bar and grab the shotgun. vs I jump behind the bar and look for a weapon.
• I shoot the guy with the machinegun. vs I shoot at the guy with the machinegun.

The first statement in each pair phrases an action as a fait accompli. The second statement is either a request for information or a statement of an intention, what would typically require a die roll or GM adjudication of the result.

I have seen brand new players use the first kind of statement. In part, because the division of creator GM and actor player is not clear to them.* The weirdest example I can recall was from Call of Cthulhu. Someone's significant other was playing for the first time and he said, "I hit him with my wooden leg." This provoked looks of utter confusion from the rest of the table because this seven word sentence included two faits accomplis. First it assumed the attack would hit. Second, and more unusual, it assumed that the character, who had hitherto not been an amputee, had a wooden leg. This would have been less jarring if the character had been, say a pirate from the Age of Sail, instead of a 1920s Miskatonic college student.

I've also seen people say "I shoot the guy with the machinegun." as shorthand for "I shoot at the guy with the machinegun." As long as everyone at the table is on the same page that player statements are statements of intention rather than statements of result, that's OK. But it can be confusing when you have someone who doesn't follow that same convention.


* If we imagine two small children playing, we might expect to see both of them trying to create the scene with each inserting their own ideas. Which may be fun for both or it may devolve into an argument about whether the couch covered in a blanket is a fort, a cave, a snow covered mountain, or a blobby monster. Many of us prefer to avoid that sort of argument, just as we prefer to avoid arguments of the "Bang you're dead!" "No I'm not, you missed me," sort.

I find myself somewhere in between the Anon Adderlan side of the authorial divide and CRKrueger and Gronan side. I've played a lot of games that do not have in game bennies like Hero, Fate, or Fortune Points. OD&D, AD&D, D&D-inspired games, Boothill, Runequest, Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, FASA Star Trek none of those use bennies that allow authorial powers.

The first game where I saw anything like authorial control was James Bond 007, which kind of makes sense for PCs who are a super spies like James Bond. So for that particular game, it was a brilliant innovation. But I haven't played 007 much. I played a lot of WEG's Star Wars D6 and I found the Character Points and Force Points in Star Wars D6 a pretty light authorial tool. Mostly they allowed and were used to let the PC try to do more stuff in a round or get a better or even a really good chance to succeed. But because they still had to roll the dice there was (nearly) always a chance, no matter how slight, that the roll would be crap and they would still fail. And for Force Points one could use the rationale that the character was actually doing something in game that aligned with spending a Force Point i.e. "Use the Force Luke."

Recently though I've played a game with even stronger authorial power, to whit Honor+Intrigue. H+I uses a benny called Fortune Points.

QuoteFortune
Swashbuckling heroes don't always prevail because they are skilled. Sometimes they are incredibly lucky. They always seem to find the secret passageway they need to escape, or grab onto a tapestry instead of plummeting to their death. Even when they are unaware they are in danger, Fortune may smile upon them and intervene. Honor + Intrigue handles this by a Characteristic called "Fortune" which represents the hand of destiny as well as a character's overall luck.

A Fortune Point allows the player some measure of control over what happens during the scene. The use of Fortune Points is important both dramatically and mechanically to the rules. [p. 14]

Some of the ways one spends Fortune Points are not or at least not very authorial. Examples of not authorial usage are adding a bonus die before a roll or adding +1 to a roll or to improve the quality of a roll.

Edging closer to authorial are the rules for Close Call.

QuoteClose Call: A narrowly avoided brush with death, usually occurring when a character spends a Fortune Point to avoid being shot. While the character is unhurt, they may be unnerved and must make a Daring roll or lose composure. [p. 8]

So you can automatically avoid a gunshot. This is a genre convention since neither the hero nor the villain in a cape and sword drama dies from a gunshot. Realistically early black powder weapons were less reliable than later types of guns so that gives us veneer of justification to place over what is a limited authorial power, equivalent to the kid who in reply to "Bang you're dead!" says, "No I'm not. You missed me."

Similarly but applied to skills more broadly we have the following*.

QuoteAutomatically succeed on a Task Roll to notice something or to evade notice. Spend the point before rolling. ["Quick into the closet, I hear somebody coming!"]

This also lets the PC, like Indiana Jones, just barely avoid the trap.

And even more clearly authorial.

QuoteMake a safe landing or avoid a fall ["Good thing this passing hay-wagon broke my fall from the tower!"]

With this we have reached something that is roughly equivalent to the shotgun behind the bar. Though this applies only to fairly small events. And as a GM I would clearly veto or adjust anything that really doesn't fit the setting.

Next is an example from the section titled, "For Dramatic License" which is a clear admission that this is giving the player dramatic license, which is clearly an authorial power.

QuoteTo create a major fact about the world ["But it • is high tide right now"]. This is subject to GM approval, and is only for major things. A PC can say "I grab the mug of ale off the table" and should be allowed to assume there is a mug of ale there without paying a point (again if the GM finds it reasonable).

There are two things to note here. One, is the phrase "subject to GM approval." When I GM any use of a Fortune Point is subject to GM approval. In practice, my players don't come up with something that needs vetoing very often. At most, a redirection is usually sufficient. "Well there aren't any hay wagons here since you are at the top of a cliff with only handholds leading to the top, but you could land on the very large midden heap on the side of the tower. That should break your fall."

Second is the reminder that taverns are likely to have mugs of ale or the like on the tables and Fortune Points shouldn't be required for common and obvious stuff like that. Similarly finding a pot or a knife in a modern restaurant kitchen wouldn't require spending a Fortune Point. A knife or a pot in a bedroom though...

One thing I've found as the GM that has helped me adjust to the limit authorial powers is to look at the scene as follows. I'll use the shotgun example. Here's how I'd want the player to phrase their statement. Instead of "I jump behind the bar and grab the shotgun." I want the player to say, "I jump behind the bar and grab a weapon. Like a shotgun."

Now if, like CRKrueger, I know for a fact that there is no gun behind the bar, the player doesn't get a shotgun. Or even a gun. But there must be some weapon there—a bat, a bung starter, a big knife, a heavy champagne bottle, a bottle of 190 proof alcohol and a lit flame, something. So the player gets that. And I try to lean towards thinking of something (or getting the player to think of something else) that is closer to the utility of a shotgun than it is to the utility of a single beer bottle. In other words, my goal here is to maintain setting consistency, not to be a dick by blocking the players for grins.

On the other hand, if I haven't decided whether or not the bartender has a shotgun then if it isn't too ridiculous given the situation...there's a shotgun.

This seems to work for me. For now.


* [Quotes form pp 15-16.]

The original example blurs distinctions between a player's irritation with an inconsistent or poor scenario with narrative mechanics. Also there is the idea that if someone asks you if X is true about the game, it might be true, it wasn't an idea in your head but that's only because you hadn't previously considered the possibility, then at the least consider rolling to see if it's true. In this case, the DM may not have visualised there being a shotgun behind the bar until they're asked.

And while I was writing that Bren wrote something very similar:

Quote from: Bren;860257On the other hand, if I haven't decided whether or not the bartender has a shotgun then if it isn't too ridiculous given the situation...there's a shotgun.

In the context of RPGs, Roleplaying was originally not used in its thespian or psychology meaning, but used to describe literally what you are doing - you are playing the role of a character.

QuoteBefore they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user.

That is, you are told what your character sees / hears / experiences, you ask questions about this information and say what your character does, and the rules are used to resolve situations.

You can do this with/without any thespianism, or immersion.

I'm personally not that keen on meta-character mechanics, i.e. mechanics to affect the world in a way that isn't through the actions of your character.

Luck as a minor meta-character mechanic sounds plausible, but when I ran FASERIP none of my players ever used karma. They forgot it existed, as they were just playing their characters.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860183How do you roleplay?

I think a little column A and a little column B. I make some assumptions based on my idea of the genre or setting. The GM can't humanly fill in every detail. But I try to react and interact to a living world model. If it doesn't make sense for my character to make an assumption (to continue the example my PC is a tenderfoot fresh off the train that's never been in the "Wild West" or maybe even a bar before I'm not going to have them assume there's a shotgun behind the bar though they may dive behind it for cover if a fight breaks out).

As a player I might have the assumption (or I might not, depends on how much I'm into my character's mindset) but having it prove wrong doesn't destroy my immersion anymore than having an assumption about the real prove generally doesn't shake my faith in reality.

I'm fine with narrative mechanics if I'm playing a narrative based game. I do not want someone trying to use such constructs while playing a game that doesn't feature them.

As long as the narrative stuff sticks to games written to account for it, everything is ok.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860199Luck Points in RQ6 bother me a little bit, they're definitely a "player chooses when the character is awesome" type of OOC mechanic.

I don't really see them that way.  The only functions for them as listed in the RQ6 core rules are to reroll any roll affecting the character, to gain an extra Action Point in combat, or to downgrade a Major Injury (potentially fatal) to a Serious Injury (potentially crippling).  The first two are easily rationalized in-game as the effect of pushing yourself to the limit, while the third helps to keep PCs from dying overly easily.  None of them are clear "create a shotgun behind the bar" meta-mechanics (although I suspect that allowing them to be used as such may be a common house rule).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;860268The original example blurs distinctions between a player's irritation with an inconsistent or poor scenario with narrative mechanics. Also there is the idea that if someone asks you if X is true about the game, it might be true, it wasn't an idea in your head but that's only because you hadn't previously considered the possibility, then at the least consider rolling to see if it's true. In this case, the DM may not have visualised there being a shotgun behind the bar until they're asked.

This is essentially how I'd handle it as a GM (and would want the GM to handle it were I a player).  If I've thought previously about whether this particular bar has a shotgun behind it or not, then my previous conclusion stands, period.  If not, I'll roll a d6 to determine whether one is there or not.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;860268I'm personally not that keen on meta-character mechanics, i.e. mechanics to affect the world in a way that isn't through the actions of your character.

Same here.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;860268Luck as a minor meta-character mechanic sounds plausible, but when I ran FASERIP none of my players ever used karma. They forgot it existed, as they were just playing their characters.

That's largely been my experience as well.  When I ran Savage Worlds, my players practically never used bennies unless they were incapacitated, blew the Vigor roll to survive, and needed to reroll it.  When we played DCC-influenced ACKS, they never spent Luck points unless it was a "use Luck or die" situation.  Etc.  And, while running those games, I just as consistently forgot that their foes had bennies/Luck as well.

I like genre tropes, but I always remember "whose world is this I'm in?" My player character is not the world, therefore to speak ex cathedra about what should be present when I need or want it is completely a non starter. Is or is not your PC the entire world? If not, and merely a mircroscopic actor within it, then act like it. No exceptions.

But then that tasks both GM and player to talk often and bring clarity to the scene. However this involves good description, active engagement, and active listening. Which seem like impossible arts at the best of times IRL, let alone on one's recreation.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860241Very differently, apparently.

Let's say it's Greyhawk Castle, and we hear footsteps and want to hide.

Rather than "we hide behind the tapestry" or "we hide behind the table" or "we hide behind the pillar," we used to say "What can we hide behind?"

It makes our intentions clear without having to worry about what we want to hide behind.

Likewise "I jump behind the bar and look for something I can use as a weapon."

If somebody started shitting themselves because there wasn't a shotgun back there, it would be game over for the night.  If you want a shotgun back there so fucking bad, run the game yourself.

99% of the time, when I'm running games with narrative mechanics - it still goes this way. Most of the time my players use those narrative mechanics to enforce something they're already trying to do in order to benefit that choice.

So for example - "Where can I hide?"

GM - There's a tapestry on one wall, a few barrels in a corner - it looks like they're prepping for a small feast. A large table in the center.

PC - "Is the tapestry large enough to hide the whole party? If not can I spend a metapoint to make it plus the barrels large enough to give us all cover?"

Or something like that. Break immersion? Yeah a little - but the back and forth of description can do that anyhow. I don't let it get in the way of things, unless they offer something I can play off of. That said - I certainly don't just hand over the reigns of things and let a player decide what's what either. I let them nudge, not change.

Using Savage Lands as an example - where I'm currently having a good time, I find the system pretty flexible. As I'm not a big huge proponent of metamechanics, I find the system if using Bennies lightly, to be a pretty violent. And I kinda like it like that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860183...
How do you roleplay?

Almost always, I play with the "traditional" line between player (plays a character or maybe several, guiding what their character(s) do(es).) and GM (provides universe, plays everyone else, determines what happens).

As GM I take player suggestions for things outside PC scope into consideration, but determine whether to accept, reject, or modify them based on my own thoughts, rules, dice, etc. Occasionally I will go with suggestions that are "narrativist" (to use this thread's term) but I always check with my own filters and likely will determine a chance and roll dice if they're assuming something about the world that might not be true. e.g. I might intuit that there's a 40% chance this bar actually has a weapon behind it - character needs a spot check roll to find it immediately even if it is there, and roll to see where behind the bar it is, what type of weapon it is, and whether it's loaded or tied down or something.

I think some "narrativist" game designs are interesting (Microscope, anyway), but I don't see them as the same thing, and I'm not eager to mix it with the usual way I play.

However now that I think of it, I have done something a bit like it when I've collaborated with another very well-known GM to create adventures and worlds. But we usually worked out our own parts.

I don't think I like the "improv" style of what feels to me like roleplaying a character AND GM'ing at the same time, with other players doing the same things, unless we're both really tuned in and on the same page, and I can only think of a very few people I would want to even try that with. I really like there to be one authority for what exists and happens, and I like a lot of that to be pre-determined and subject to detailed and realistic rules, and not pulled from the nether regions by someone being tempted by spur-of-the-moment callings to what seems cool or fun or stylish. I hate that even in fiction, and I have an acute detection sense for the various common flavors of it. I'm even suspicious of my own impulses when writing fiction, playing solo, creating gameworld events away from the PCs, etc. Often other people's ideas of things that are cool and stylish, strike me as contrived, forced and unbelievable.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860194For me, if there's a mechanic I can use to enforce my will on the setting, there is no immersion.  I don't want to immerse in my head, I can do that whenever I want.  I want to immerse into something else, "play pretend" for lack of a better word in an alternate world where the challenges are real, the gloves are off, and I live or die by my choices and the roll of the dice.

If it turns out my guy is like the Viking from 13th Warrior who takes a critical to the ribs and can't run any more, so stands to hold the way and dies with his sword in his hand, then by god so be it.  I don't need any mechanical bonus because I'm playing to genre.  I'm going to Valhalla, and if the rest of the guys survive, my name will live on through tales of what happened.  I'm happy.

I guess the thing is, I never say "I jump behind the bar and grab the shotgun." because I'm not immersing in the assumptions in my head.  I say "I jump behind the bar, and look for a weapon." because my character doesn't know whether there is one or not, he hopes there is, but I'm immersed in the reality of the setting, which is not subject to my whims.

Yup yup yup. Me too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860183Following on from the narrative thread, due to the success of FATE, X-World, etc... it's clear that there are a lot of people who like authorship in their roleplay, and very clear there's a lot of current game designers who do also. (I think they fall on their face when, like Ron Edwards, or Robin Laws, they assume that's what going on in their head is what's going on in mine, whether I realize it or not, but that's a different thread.)

In fact, I think for some people, there is always that "meta-layer" there, always the 4th wall aspect, the dual layer of playing the character and playing the game and making conscious decisions from both.  Now I realize that since we all are playing a game, unless we possess Daniel Day Lewis powers, we all have a dual layer, but for many of us, the whole point of roleplaying is to put aside that second layer, let it merge into the background and make decisions only from the point of view of the character.

Take for example this exchange that happened a few years ago.  We're talking about Immersion.


And my response...emphasis added.


I'm not going to claim that Anon isn't as "immersed" as I, or John Morrow, who was Anon was responding to, can be, but into what is he immersed? It seems pretty clear, he's immersed into an expression of a genre.  In other words, once he finds out "Western", his brain fills in the rest.  He's not immersed into the world at the table, he's immersed into the world of westerns in his head, of which the table is one expression.  If my character jumps behind the bar and looks for a weapon and there isn't one, my character thinks "Fuck", and I move on.  For Anon, the immersion stops because his player assumption based on genre disagrees with what happened at the table.  It seems to me the whole "narrative movement" with specific mechanics to reinforce that playstyle are there to make sure that immersion doesn't stop for anyone playing that way, because the mechanics are there to smooth over discrepancies between visions of what is happening. A whole lot of people play this way I think, hell they may even be the majority for all I know or care.  All I know is...I don't.  I don't play in literary genres, I play in worlds that are alternate universes, that could be just as real as ours.  They have their own physics and cosmology and while some things are the same as ours, others aren't.  

How do you roleplay?

I think I can give you a hint.
Anon is, and that's my impression about him since the TBP, long before reading that, immersed in a kind of improv theater performance.
In improv, if you assume something is right, "say yes (and there's no dice)" means that it is right... someone can then come up with some elaboration why it doesn't work as you'd expect it, but unless it's done skillfully, it's frowned upon as "blocking".
The GM's reality doesn't have prevalence in this style, unless he had managed to already establish his facts. Games made for this style tend to make it easier on the GM to establish facts and restrict the facts players can establish (see: A World of Dew, Houses of the Blooded). A lot of groups just allow players to declare such facts, barring GM veto, if they want it - while playing wholly traditional games.

And then there's the wholly different layer of playing where you don't control just your own character. You can be immersed in that, too, but it's not immersing in a character.

And on the other end of the spectrum, there's the usual kind of roleplayng that you, CRK, are used to. It's like roleplaying in a training simulation. If the simulation is skillfully done, it's the most immersive IMO.
Otherwise, I'd prefer the "improve" set-up.

Me? I've done a little improv, I've done quite a bit of traditional roleplaying. I've done story games and I like writing.
I can do any of these, but I prefer the traditional style. Except when I'm in the mood for something else, I default to it.

I'd add that not only do I generally want a line between player and GM saying what happens or what is in the world, but I also don't want the GM making choices too much based on what seems cool, especially not at the level of what happens. I want to play in a game where things make a certain amount of sense (and mostly, completely make sense in a realistic, not genre-stylish, way), so I can believe in it and choose what to do based on what makes sense, and end up playing in a world that makes realistic sense, rather that being driven by some surreal sense of genre-style or rule-of-cool. I don't like playing in games where it generally works best to do what seems cool and stylish because the GM has that work, and there's no need to do things that actually make sense, because the GM and/or other players aren't thinking that way.

For example, when players who choose to jump on an enormous serpent or dragon and climb up to it's neck or something are just sort of allowed to do so, as if that weren't a suicidal ridiculous tactic that would probably just get them killed for umpteen reasons, because it seems cool and heroic and oh it would be unfun to have the brave heroic (but highly improbable) move get someone's PC embarrassed and injured or killed. Meanwhile the players using actual tactics that make sense end up being sidelined.

Quote from: AsenRG;860313I think I can give you a hint.
Anon is, and that's my impression about him since the TBP, long before reading that, immersed in a kind of improv theater performance.

I agree, we talked about that before back in the day, and that's something that crops up in a lot of other gaming techniques like "Say Yes, or Roll the Dice", "Fail Forward", etc. they are techniques for roleplaying within a collaborative story.