Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

[arminius]

I'm sorry, Luke, but I don't see many truths in your post #151, just a bunch of slogans and manifestos.

This is interesting, though:

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.

I'd really like to know whether you consider the GM's ability in BW to introduce, say, an army of White-statted warriors & sorcerers, led by a king who proceeds to order the PCs around, to be GM Fiat. (Doesn't the GM have that ability? Correct me if I'm wrong.) I'll assume that it is. Does this mean that BW gives the GM permission to direct the game? No, of course not. The rules are at worst neutral on this issue; I'm not going to go digging through them, but I'm more than willing to give your game the benefit of the doubt and suggest that somewhere in there, you lay out the GM's responsibilities in a manner that implies the GM shouldn't push the players around like that, should instead adopt a more "GM proposes, players dispose" or "players act, GM reacts" approach. But if laying out responsibilities is sufficient to redress an "unequal balance of power" contained in formal rules (such as a formal rule allowing the GM to conjure up world elements), then I think the case against "traditional RPGs" is a bum rap. Some of them have GM advice which encourages the GM to force a particular story on the players, some don't. Some have practically no advice whatsoever, which suggests that any problems are really ones brought to the table

[Alnag]

I am so not surprised, that the bunch of claims was not supported by facts. I am not surprised, that you have not provided the winning conditions of D&D. Because, there are none.

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.

To quote one famous movie yet again. "Your arogance blinds you, Luke!" These are just empty proclamations. You are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence, any facts, any reasoning to support them. That is not the dark side of the Forge at its best. Misleading, irational and just arousing emotions and attention.

Kissing is awesome!

I guess, it depends much on who or what you kiss.

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 problem is, that you have to deal with that. The problem of children play for grasping RPGs is essential. The important point is, in what point will the children proto-RPG change into full-scale pretending. And what element was inserted into the game, that facilitate this. And of course... what are the winning conditions of children games. Because every game has them? Or not? Because if there is a game without winning conditon, your premise is wrong. You can close your eyes, that would not make these games to go away.

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

Yeah... and theoretically the host and leader might not even play. Acutally, under very special circumstances, the host and leader may not be a human at all. It might be CPU hosting play-be-email via server. And yet still, if you analyze the group deep enough there is somebody puting the initial impulze to play. Someone has to agree to GM and so on... Yes, you might divide the GM  powers onto several players, but somehow someone has to suggest that move and so on. The concept of equality of players is just wild fantasy... there is very intricate social relations network, which is usually unequal. This unequality is reflected to the game.

Acutally one might come to conclusion, that designing game which expects equality of players is pretty much incoherent with reality...

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.

Or... these GM-less games strech the boundries of the definition and as such, the definition is dead on without any exceptions. Or what more... maybe GM-less RPGs are not RPGs at all. They are just another kind of parlour games.

[Settembrini]

It´s interesting to note, that the same guy blathering about equality uses one of the most patronizing writing styles known since GG in his games.

Maybe it´s Luke´s mission to disenfranchise the GM, so the author can rule supreme?

Alas, the Artha mechanic is a clear counterpoint to his "equality" talk.

[Brantai]

IOr... these GM-less games strech the boundries of the definition and as such, the definition is dead on without any exceptions. Or what more... maybe GM-less RPGs are not RPGs at all. They are just another kind of parlour games.

I know this was true of Pantheon by Hogshead.  Definitely a parlour game.  I was disappointed, anyway.

[Thanatos02]

This is a Forge-type discussion if ever there was one! Oh my!

Luke, I think we're splitting hairs for the most part, in what replies you've directed back at me. For the most part, I agree with what you're getting at, and I absolutely agree that Burning Wheel is a role-playing game, et al.

I think it's ok for role-playing games to have different GM styles. I think it's stupid for people to develop shoulder-based chips based on the idea that there is a game where the GM does not have unlimited power. This is one style of GMing. There are other games where the GMs are given power not limited by game rules.

I don't think those games are broken. (I'm not saying you do, but we have discussed, in the past, the capacity for those games to be manhandled by GMs with a diety-complex.)

I believe that, when we're talking about the role of a GM honestly, most people who GM frequently have a code, usually unstated. These are not part of the rules, but most GMs agree that they've been given a certain trust by their players, and won't step outside the trust that's given. Bad GMs abuse their trust, and despite what some bravos here and elsewhere might say, that can damage people's ability to enjoy games. I can see why you developed Burning Wheel.

Eliot Warren is correct when he says that your rules are, at best, power-neutral when it comes to the ability to stat NPCs.  However, I don't think it's a bad thing when the GM has to follow rules. It seems strange to see people like Koltar say things like, "Power to the DM!!!! Where it belongs!!!" (Bolding mine) because I don't feel that the 'power' belongs anywhere, and especially that it's a dud construct to assume that players either don't have power or are not entitled to it by virtue of playing the game.

That's Foucault, I believe, but hey - the Pundit hates Foucault and anything that hints at post-modernism anyhow. Screw that, though. It's totally accurate.

[Pierce Inverarity]

I'm sorry, Luke, but I don't see many truths in your post #151, just a bunch of slogans and manifestos.

Word.

Luke? Still listening out for a reasoned response to my statement. Reasoning = you actually argue your case.

[Abyssal Maw]

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.

...none of which has been successful or any good.

[Geoff Hall]

...none of which has been successful or any good.

In your opinion.  I happen to like Polaris rather a lot.

[TonyLB]

...none of which has been successful

Capes sells fine, thanks.  No, it's not making WotC numbers, but it sure doesn't seem to be suffering by contrast with the GM-centric games in the self-published category.

'xcept Spirit of the Century, of course ... but I can't get too ticked off at Fred for blowin' our grade-point curve, he's such a nice guy

[Abyssal Maw]

Explain then, why even on the forgie places, these GM-emasculating games are simply not reported about or even talked about much? Of if they are it's described in a way "yeah so we tried out (polaris or whatever) once... that was interesting. So anyhow, here's what's been going on in the BW campaign we play every week and twice on Sundays.."

These GM-less games simply aren't catching on and aren't being played much. And that's not just you guys, that goes for all of them. Robin Laws' Pantheon, Once upon a Time, Baron Munchausen, Sketch...

[Alnag]

Capes sells fine, thanks.  No, it's not making WotC numbers, but it sure doesn't seem to be suffering by contrast with the GM-centric games in the self-published category.

Proof?!

Or is this yet another example of classical "made-up argument" or kind of "wish-thinking". I don't want to be apriori sceptical about you, so I will expect to hear from you on this topic soon.

[Marco]

Luke,
lest you think I'm just taking a swipe at you with the immersion thing, I'm not. I can see you didn't specifically say anything about immersion. Mostly that's the case for a lot of RPG dialog that's problematic too. If you want to know *why* your post is more fuel for the fire, I can point you in the direction of immersion as a major way that, for a hugely significant number of cases, RPGs do distinguish themselves from other games.

I don't know why you think people believe RPGs are fundamentally different than poker or Monopoly but immersion is, really one of the big ones. Immersion is, not coincidentally, a big reason to have rule zero and a traditional GM.

It isn't the only way. DitV manages a limited (but still, IMO, traditional) GM by being very narrow in scope. Games like Risus or The Window manage to not need rule zero by putting all simulation in the GM's hands 'above' a thin mechanical layer. These approaches are fine--even elegant--but they have drawbacks.

Understanding that--discussing in those terms is, I think, productive. But flatly saying Kult is just like Go is being willfully blind--and to a deep extent, I think it's blind around immersion--and that doesn't help anyone.

Even if you don't see how immersion relates to what you said, surely you know that there has been much argument around it. Probably a lot of people caught in those arguments were also a bit perplexed.

-Marco

[Brantai]

Proof?!

Or is this yet another example of classical "made-up argument" or kind of "wish-thinking". I don't want to be apriori sceptical about you, so I will expect to hear from you on this topic soon.

I believe it's Tony's game, so he would know.

[TonyLB]

Explain then, why even on the forgie places, these GM-emasculating games are simply not reported about or even talked about much?

>shrug<  I don't have a real good explanation for it.  Could be lots of things.

I don't really traffic so much in the Grand Model of Reality stuff, and trying to explain things to suit a vision of how the world is/should be.  I'm just offering my individual observations:  Capes sells well.  Polaris sells well (according to IPR numbers and what Ben tells me).  You said GMless games weren't successful, and at least by that measure you're provably mistaken.  Make of that what you will.

[TonyLB]

Or is this yet another example of classical "made-up argument" or kind of "wish-thinking". I don't want to be apriori sceptical about you, so I will expect to hear from you on this topic soon.

As I've said elsewhere, my attention-whore complex welcomes any Q&A spotlight that you choose to shine upon me