Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

[TonyLB]

I simply don't believe that the majority (and make no mistake, this is always characterized as the majority) of gamers would really rather watch then play, but "plays anyway just so nobody feels uncomfortable."

Uh ... okay.  I'm not characterizing it as a majority.  It doesn't look like Vadrus is characterizing it as a majority.  He's just talking about his personal coffee-klatch of gamers.  

So ... are we done here?  Or are you all hot to beat on an argument that nobody actually participating in the conversation stands behind?

[Vadrus]

I simply don't believe that the majority (and make no mistake, this is always characterized as the majority) of gamers would really rather watch then play, but "plays anyway just so nobody feels uncomfortable."

Nor do I believe that there is any kind of sizable population that really wants to play at "being an author".

Nor do I believe that these story-simulators actually work all that well.  For one thing, they are clearly simulations, and for one thing, by reducing player-to-character ownership responsibilities, you also reduce the personal stake everyone has in playing.

I do believe there is a sizable population of people that want to play at being a character. They specifically want to be their own character and be in their own little story, and have their own little Rashomon version of how it went.

That was my fault for being a bit to over generic in my comments again, and hopefully my second post above clarified my position somewhat.

When I speak of players wanting to be 'entertained' I meant that they only want the responsibility for their own characters actions, not for the the NPC's, setting or 'story'.

They expect the GM to provide 'entertaining' adventures, settings and NPC interactions.

But as always that is just in my experience.


Vadrus

[Abyssal Maw]

That was my fault for being a bit to over generic in my comments again, and hopefully my second post above clarified my position somewhat.

When I speak of players wanting to be 'entertained' I meant that they only want the responsibility for their own characters actions, not for the the NPC's, setting or 'story'.

They expect the GM to provide 'entertaining' adventures, settings and NPC interactions.

But as always that is just in my experience.


Vadrus

Well, this I can agree with.


As for TonyLB: You know as well as I do, that the chief reason that is usually brought up as to why the forgie games don't catch on is that the "majority of gamers don't want to actively participate in telling a story. They want to be passively entertained by the GM".

I'm saying that statement is false. I am glad that you disagree with it. Now, if you want to make this real productive, I suggest that the next time you see that sentiment, you step up and point that out.

[Lee Short]

Thanatos, Spike. Are you insisting that RPGs are special in regards to games?* And that they need special rules and situations that seem good enough for every other type of game.

The analogy presented was of a game in which one player had special discretion over other players and was only beholden to his good judgement. We are not univerally rational, fair beings. We each have our own biases, many of them shift according to our needs and whims.

RPGs aren't special. There is simply this ingrained tradition to build rules in a certain fashion. Is successful by default -- because that was the only way it was done. Only now are the basic assumptions that make up roleplaying game being seriously questioned.

RPGs are special.  Games such as monopoly are inherently competitive.  RPGs are not.  In fact, there are a rather large number of RPG players who do not prefer to play RPGs competitively.  There are even a large number who will not play them competitively, and will leave a game if the other players are playing competitively.

-----------

Furthermore, any player only has fiat power to the degree that the other players cede it to him, no matter what the rule book may say.  The rule book never gives power to anyone; the other players do.  The rule book may encourage or discourage a certain power structure but it is the players that determine it.  

In any case, "DM Fiat" is never absolute; an rpg requires consensus to function as a shared fiction.  Different players may have differential input to this consensus, but at any time any individual player may socially assert his power by refusing to consent to any given fictional statement.  Every player always has this power, despite your claims to the contrary.

[-E.]

I'd have to agree, most people I have ever GM'd for tend to turn up to the table with an 'entertain me' attitude, and as GM I love trying to live up to or exceed their expectations.

Similarly when I play I tend to think 'great, I can relax now and just play', I don't want to have the creative responsability all of the time.

Shared responsibility games can be great, but personally I find them too stressful on the group as a whole to try and maintain them for long.

Vadrus

Being a PC is creative in a different way than a GM -- and for most people (but apparently not all of them) that difference is key to immersion.

When I'm playing a PC, I'm enjoying seeing things through his eyes and perspective. I enjoy coming up with the right thing for him to say. This is all creative work, but it's a very different set of concerns than scene-setting, mood-evoking, attention to timing, and so-on.

For one thing, a GM has all kinds of planes in the air ("what are the NPC's doing, what's going on in the world, etc.). PC's usually have far few external concerns to worry about (I think the bird's-eye-view v. the PC-view of the game is one of the key factors that affects immersion for me... and I suspect most people).

Being a GM may be less relaxing than being a PC, especially if prep work is considered, but I think that the "creative responsibility" is pretty well shared.

Cheers,
-E.

[-E.]

In any case, "DM Fiat" is never absolute; an rpg requires consensus to function as a shared fiction.  Different players may have differential input to this consensus, but at any time any individual player may socially assert his power by refusing to consent to any given fictional statement.  Every player always has this power, despite your claims to the contrary.

It's kind of like Poker, right -- in many tables the dealer calls the game and the other players decide whether to ante or sit the hand out.

No one calls the dealer a tyrant who ruins everyone elses fun, right? It's understood that if you call a game no one wants to play you get laughed at and next round, the next guy goes.

This is just like RPGs, right?

Or... are RPG's... special?

Cheers,
-E.

[Abyssal Maw]

Being a PC is creative in a different way than a GM -- and for most people (but apparently not all of them) that difference is key to immersion.

When I'm playing a PC, I'm enjoying seeing things through his eyes and perspective. I enjoy coming up with the right thing for him to say. This is all creative work, but it's a very different set of concerns than scene-setting, mood-evoking, attention to timing, and so-on.

For one thing, a GM has all kinds of planes in the air ("what are the NPC's doing, what's going on in the world, etc.). PC's usually have far few external concerns to worry about (I think the bird's-eye-view v. the PC-view of the game is one of the key factors that affects immersion for me... and I suspect most people).

Being a GM may be less relaxing than being a PC, especially if prep work is considered, but I think that the "creative responsibility" is pretty well shared.

Cheers,
-E.

Once again, E manages to say exactly what I want to say.

[-E.]

Once again, E manages to say exactly what I want to say.

I wonder if I could get a Q&A thread on the Forge?

-E.

[Alnag]

I wonder if I could get a Q&A thread on the Forge?

You know... I can really see that happening. With all that patronizing approach of dear uncle Ron.

But I would rather see him, here in Q&A.

[Abyssal Maw]

You know... I can really see that happening. With all that patronizing approach of dear uncle Ron.

But I would rather see him, here in Q&A.

I think he's done after this year. Heck, he was technically done after "brain damage".

[Alnag]

I think he's done after this year. Heck, he was technically done after "brain damage".

To quote one famous movie: "You underestimate the power of the dark side!"

[arminius]

Machine-gun style replies. Up against the wall!

Although I think even this scenario is over-optimistic: does anyone think that groups don't ignore the rules and over-ride-with-fiat of even indie games when it suites them?

Sure. (a) I think people have played "indie" games without overriding the rules. 'Course  that could be luck: the rules worked perfectly that time. So...(b) I think people have played "indie" (and not just "indie") games with a dedication to not fudging, ever, and they've lived up to it.

But I also think one of the ways that people avoid fudging is that they use a system's built-in discretion to avoid situations and outcomes which would "break" the game. E.g., in Dogs in the Vineyard, the group as a whole establishes stakes for a conflict. Is there an outcome you find unacceptable? Don't agree to it. Same goes for raises (the stuff that happens in the middle of a conflict): the GM is supposed to push the group to follow the standards of "the most critical player" at the table.

Yeah the GM (in most trad type of games) should play at being JK Rowling, Bob Kane and Toni Morrison

Er, nope. Well, they can, but it's not what I like a GM to do. I want a GM to be more like the producers of a reality TV show...or the people who designed Westworld (minus the part where they forget to keep Yul Brynner from actually killing me, the player).

Same thing: If the unique (and yes again, SPECIAL) dynamic of RPG's isn't too your taste... why try to make an RPG that plays more like a board game? Why not fucking make an actual board game instead? Or play an actual board game? If they are to your taste, why try so damn hard to toss out the fundamentals? Building a house without a foundation is just foolish, but you want to challenged the assumption that foundations are necessary to houses?

Nah, if people want to make freaky stuff that's completely unlike what I think of as an RPG...whether that makes it more like a board game or turns it into something else entirely...go ahead, I might like it. But "X is part of RPGs only because people assume it has to be there, otherwise they'd discard it because X is crap"...this is parochial nonsense.

Nor do I believe that these story-simulators actually work all that well.

I'm not sure I've had them work particularly well for me; however I'm not prepared to dismiss all the personal accounts of people who say they've enjoyed them. Simply giving them that level of credence doesn't mean I can't laugh and point fingers when they fail to reciprocate.

[David R]

Er, nope. Well, they can, but it's not what I like a GM to do. I want a GM to be more like the producers of a reality TV show...or the people who designed Westworld (minus the part where they forget to keep Yul Brynner from actually killing me, the player).

Okay it's a personal preference thing but I would just like to add that my idea of "GM vision" includes taking into account the consequences of the pc actions, that story/plot whatever has no fixed outcome, the idea that the pcs are immersed in the setting not the plot/story whatever (well yeah, they do get immersed but what do you expect when they create it) In other words nothing is written in stone except the stuff the pcs chisel down. So I think gaming-wise we will get on fine...although I have been known to be wrong - numerous times.

Regards,
David R

[Spike]

Don't get me wrong, Elliot: He can design whatever he wants, however he wants it.

But no amount of telling me that the foundation isn't necessary for the house... that foundations are merely traditional and non-functional... is gonna get me to accept that his 'foundationless houses' are somehow inherently better than a traditional house with a traditional foundation.


Crowing that he's made... or that someone else has made an 'RPG' that doesn't actually much resemble an actual RPG (much like a motor home doesn't much resemble a house, functional though it may be) therefore the rest of us should perforce discard our old ways willy nilly is hardly going to endear me to him. I happen to prefer houses with foundations and RPGS that play like... well... RPGs and not motor homes.

[arminius]

Okay it's a personal preference thing but I would just like to add that my idea of "GM vision" includes taking into account the consequences of the pc actions, that story/plot whatever has no fixed outcome, the idea that the pcs are immersed in the setting not the plot/story whatever (well yeah, they do get immersed but what do you expect when they create it) In other words nothing is written in stone except the stuff the pcs chisel down. So I think gaming-wise we will get on fine...although I have been known to be wrong - numerous times.

Most likely we would; the distinction I was making was that Bob Kane had full control over everything his characters did, and what followed from his characters' actions. Although authors sometimes claim their characters "took on a life of their own", such an author would have no need for "players".