Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

[luke]

Sorry for ducking out. I've been busy with life and fulfilling Blossoms preorders.

I'm not going to try to play catch up and quote responses. I'll simply throw some more gas on the fire.



RPGs are not special. They're just games. Yes, they have some pretty cool rules and an awesome play dynamic, but they are not above the basic tenets for any game: There are players and a set of rules by which the players abide.

GMs are not referees or the dealer. They're not in control of the game. Their goals are not more important than any other player. Like the other players, it is their right to have fun, be entertained, play the game and enjoy immersive play as much as any one else. They are just another player, but one who has special duties.

There's nothing in ye olde basic definition of RPGs that says that there must be a GM or that one player should have the right to go outside of the rules in order to see his ideas accomplished. RPGs have a very broad definition, however you slice it but, GM and Rule Zero are not in that core definition.

RPGs all have win conditions. RPG win conditions are different than most games in that they are typically derived from the players' goals and generated moment to moment in play and change to something else upon accomplishment. Win conditions do not automatically make a game  competitive.

Playing a game by the rules does not equal disenfranchisement or tyranny by the game designer.

An RPG with functional rules which grants explicit rights to each player is not a boardgame or a wargame.

Removing Rule Zero does not make the game collaborative storytelling or mandate equal power for all players.

[James J Skach]

Removing Rule Zero does not make the game collaborative storytelling or mandate equal power for all players.

Fair enough - as long as you are also willing to say:

Having Rule Zero does not remove the possibility of collaborative storytelling or mandate unequal power among players.

Because much of the emotion comes from the idea that to say the first, also means you are saying "Having Rules Zero makes it impossible to have collaborative storytelling and sets and mandates unequal (unfair) power distribution amongst players." Which runs counter to a great body of experience.

[Koltar]

GMs are not referees or the dealer. They're not in control of the game. Their goals are not more important than any other player. Like the other players, it is their right to have fun, be entertained, play the game and enjoy immersive play as much as any one else. They are just another player, but one who has special duties.

There's nothing in ye olde basic definition of RPGs that says that there must be a GM or that one player should have the right to go outside of the rules in order to see his ideas accomplished. RPGs have a very broad definition, however you slice it but, GM and Rule Zero are not in that core definition.
.............

What the F....!!???

In the dozens upon dozens of RPG books that I've read over the years the GM is most definitely the Referee. Thats the reason several adventures and magazines have a section called  : Referee's Notes.



Power to The GM!!!
Where it belongs!!!!

- Ed C.

[droog]

Fascism and communism are both BAD!

[Koltar]

Fascism and communism are both BAD!

Thanks for reminding us - you're right about that.

However in RPGs, the GM should and does have the power.


- Ed C.  










 This is the RPG section...if you really want to "necro" that , its down in OTHER TOPICS

[Brantai]

Kissing is awesome!

[Alnag]

...but they are not above the basic tenets for any game: There are players and a set of rules by which the players abide.

Bullshit. The basic tenet of game does not contain rules (not even unwritten ones). Watch some very small children and you will find. They haven't got even players in some sense, because it is hardly conscious activity - i am player - it is just having fun in it very proto-form.

GMs are not referees or the dealer. They're not in control of the game. Their goals are not more important than any other player.

Anyone, who has ever had a problem with finding a reasonable date to meet, know how important is to even manage the meeting. That one person (host, game manager) is more important is pretty much a core of the game itself. The very idea of gaming is product of one mind. We are not borg with collective mind. And that is happening even in games without GM. And there is always one leader be it formal or informal. The problem is, if there is not clearly set who is in charge, it might bring problems such as who will host summon next session.

There's nothing in ye olde basic definition of RPGs that says that there must be a GM or that one player should have the right to go outside of the rules in order to see his ideas accomplished. RPGs have a very broad definition, however you slice it but, GM and Rule Zero are not in that core definition.

You know what... I'll recommend S. John Ross definition. Below:

Gamers often prefer boundary-based definitions (game rules usually depend on them), but RPGs are a center-oriented topic, hence the interminable debate. I propose that RPGs have no set boundaries, but rather a series of gradations toward other forms of entertainment, and that any attempt to draw borders between them is doomed to failure. Our only hope of defining RPGs is to define the center of the thing, to establish the distance and relationship between RPGs and other forms of fiction, other kinds of games, and other uses for social roleplaying:

The core of the RPG is the adoption of role. Each player adopts the identity and persona of a fictional character, and experiences the game's events from that character's perspective. The game is about how the characters deal with the goals, questions and challenges that arise in play.

RPGs are gameplay. The outcome of any conflict relating to the game's goals, questions and challenges is determined by choices within the context of rules, including both the game system (which provides mechanics for quantifying character abilities and resolving conflicts which test them), and broader "rules" implied by the game's chosen setting, genre, mode, style and group.

RPGs are a live ensemble. A roleplaying game is a live, shared, cooperative experience at both the player and character level. The game's central goals, questions and challenges are those that concern the entire group of characters, while the game itself played by gathering socially as a group and interacting personally to make and implement choices.

RPGs have a Game Master. In a roleplaying game, every player is a "player" except one, generically referred to as the Game Master. The rules determine the results of choices, but roleplaying games are designed with the understanding that those rules can never be absolute nor cover every possible action that the characters may attempt. The "ensemble" and "character-oriented" nature of RPGs insure that each situation is unique, and typically requires an interpretation of the rules to determine the actual outcome. The Game Master is the player responsible for making those interpretations, and for concocting and presenting the challenges that require them in the first place. The Game Master is the only player without a single character of his own. Instead, the Game Master portrays the rest of the universe the characters exist in, including all the other people, creatures, places, weather and so on (which means he gets to do even more funny voices than the other players). With no GM to shoulder these responsibilities, it would be impossible for the players maintain the kind of subjectivity (or enjoy the broad freedom to invent new solutions to challenges) that provides the most unusual thrill of an RPG (what I like to refer to as "tactical infinity"). Being a GM is a lot of work and responsibility, which is the #1 reason RPGs are a hobby as well as an entertainment form.

These four features define the center, as I perceive it, rather than setting boundaries. Lots of very interesting roleplaying games discard (or at least play very loosely) with the concepts above, and there are spectra within them as well as beyond them. Even a game entirely lacking some of the core features I describe doesn't necessarily become "not a roleplaying game" - it's just somewhere on the map away from the center and closer to the center of another game form, fictional medium, or roleplaying exercise.

RPGs all have win conditions.

Unconfirmed claim. Winning means the game is over. So, what is wining condition for DnD? When the game is over?

[Koltar]

RPGs have winning conditons??

 Again : "What the F....?"

Okay FINE, The winning conditions are :
 The group of players WIN if they all felt they had a good time.

The GM WINS if she or he feels the players had a good time and she or he did too.


MEGA-WIN for the GM : if one of the players gives him a really good back rub afterwards.   (That has happened at least once or twice over the years....)


- Ed C.

[Abyssal Maw]

RPGs have winning conditons??

 Again : "What the F....?"

Okay FINE, The winning conditions are :
 The group of players WIN if they all felt they had a good time.

The GM WINS if she or he feels the players had a good time and she or he did too.


MEGA-WIN for the GM : if one of the players gives him a really good back rub afterwards.   (That has happened at least once or twice over the years....)

- Ed C.

It's a series of parrot quotes from the forge.

[Marco]

Every one of the "RPGs are like other games" was set up with a false premise: the dealer in poker is a different role, not one entitled to 'more fun' (they can call games they like, but this is a very limited sort of ability to control play).

RPGs don't usually have terminal win conditions either (taken as a whole). It seems to me that claiming otherwise is posturing.

Most games are competitive: RPGs need not be. Most games do not generate a fiction-style narrative. RPGs do. The vast, vast majority of games do not have a fictional context for the action that is important in an immersive sense--and that's really the problem.

The RPGs-are-normal-games rhetoric is from the same school that either denies the existence of or ignores immersion as a goal of play. I hypothetise because many indie-games are bad at it and because it causes problems under the theory.

But make no mistake: ignoring immersion is at the core of a lot of the problems in the RPG dialog. It was described as throwing fuel on the fire and it is.
-Marco

[Lee Short]

Luke, you may want to play your RPGs like you play Monopoly.  That's fine and all, but your assertion that all RPGs are like this is just ludicrous.  Pretty much the same order of ludicrous as the assertion that "the GM has all the power."  As I explained above, the GM can't possibly have *all* the power.  

And, what Marco said.

[luke]

Fun times. You can give me all the WTFs you want on this stuff. Not going to change the truth of the matter. Go back and read what I wrote, if you dare. It's all true! Shocking, I know.

What's more, check this out:

Rule zero does not remove the possibility for collaborative storytelling or mandate unequal power. But it does present an unequal balance of power to the players and give them permission to use it. To do otherwise is to go counter to the design of the game.

Fascism and communism are bad!

Kissing is awesome!

RPGs are not "playing pretend." Children playing pretend/house/whatever are not "role playing" in the same sense that we are. They are not adults, nor fully formed personalities (until after age 7). They are jockeying through identity politics and a whole host of other shit that we, as adults, thankfully don't have to deal with any longer.

The GM is not the host or the leader. The host or the leader can be any player.

S John Ross' definition is dead on except for the inclusion of the GM role. The necessity of the GM has been handily disproved by a number of GM-less, character-centered RPGs.

At no point did I deny the existence of, or fun of, immersion.

I hate Monopoly!

[James J Skach]

Rule zero does not remove the possibility for collaborative storytelling or mandate unequal power. But it does present an unequal balance of power to the players and give them permission to use it. To do otherwise is to go counter to the design of the game.

Luke,

All other silliness aside (kissing, indeed!), can you expand a bit on the bolded part?  I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't want to assume or read anything into it.

Thanks,
Jim

PS: Oh, and thanks for the first sentence.  I'm just trying to make sure if this is a valid But-monkey or not...

[Vadrus]

RPGs are not "playing pretend."

Bugger, I've been doing it all wrong all these years, I thought I was pretending to be a Barbarian Hero, pretending I was an Alien, pretending I was a Spaceman...


Vadrus

[Brantai]

S John Ross' definition is dead on except for the inclusion of the GM role. The necessity of the GM has been handily disproved by a number of GM-less, character-centered RPGs.

Could you give me a few examples?  I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I'm seriously interested in looking into them.