Quote from: two_fishes;362891I actually am making an effort not to be antagonistic, and use language that's both neutral and clear. Isn't ownership of the fiction what's going on? Every player in an rpg tries to influence the fiction. The ways they are allowed to do that are limited by the rules and by the custom of each group.

I didn't say you were being antagonistic, I said your description of the trad group dynamic assumed a kind of "narrative struggle" between the players and the GM. There's a big difference, between a player influencing the narrative through roleplaying her character and influencing it as a player. It's disingenuous to claim that there's really no difference between the two.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Aos;363014The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.

You wrong Aos. Take another look at Forward to Adventure !

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362970Actually I get it just fine, I just think it can be taken to an extreme and that can be off-putting.

True enough.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362970I'm disagreeing here. My own experience tells me that there are people who are obsessed about the perfection of the model of the game rather than interested in the act of actually playing it (which involves social skills, collaboration, compromise, etc), and those people are not worth dealing with. Theyre hung up on bullshit, and 90% of the time they don't play that often anyway. Their needs, wants, and desires can safely be discounted.

Well, yeah, anytime you get into theorycrafting, you end up dealing with bitter non-gamers, and I think most active gamers have a narrower sweet spot of gaming in theory then they actually enjoy in practice around the table.  There's also the difference between GMing and playing.  I'd play a FATE or 4e game in a heartbeat and give the GM a shot, but thinking about running a long-term campaign with those systems makes my brain bleed.  I guess when it comes to suspension of disbelief I hold myself as GM to a higher standard then I hold other GMs when I'm a player, so as a GM I avoid games that kind of go out of their way to make extra work for me on the Immersion front.

Approaching the gates the PC's are challenged by the sentinels standing guard:
Ed: I drop my pants and shake my cock at them saying, "Do you recognize this? It identifies me as one of the Uncut Brigade, do you not know of us?"
DM: "Don't think so, we don't get a lot of visitors with these parts."
Ed: "We've been protecting these parts for years from the unnessary cutting hoards that roam these lands."
DM: "Wait a minute aren't you the guys that were disbanded by the king for ritual acts of fornication with farm animals?"
Ed: "Aye, that is but an untruth that brought our group low."
DM: "So you are not a bunch of sheep fuckers?"
Ed: "Nay, we are sheep fuckers, but there certainly is no ritual part to it."

well someone is a lying Mearls, Edwards, or board members I'm not sure but the things that are being said don't line up with what Edwards has said recently?

Quote from: Seanchai;362984Do you think random events, rules, or traditional GMing styles always lead to fun? If you say no, why haven't you stopped using those?

Seanchai

Yes. For me anyway. YMMV

Quote from: David R;363020I didn't say you were being antagonistic, I said your description of the trad group dynamic assumed a kind of "narrative struggle" between the players and the GM. There's a big difference, between a player influencing the narrative through roleplaying her character and influencing it as a player. It's disingenuous to claim that there's really no difference between the two.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I don't mean for this division of control over the fiction to sound as adversarial as you seem to have inferred. Obviously in the vast majority of cases the ownership of the fiction (or division of control over; or jurisdiction over; or however you want to put it) is decided on by the games rules and by group custom before the game even begins, and then played within those divisions. Limiting player influence to "the words and attempted actions of my character" is a pretty common division during gameplay, but I don't think that it has to be an assumed given that it's the default style.

I suppose you could say that the goal of immersive play (so far as i understand it) is to correlate player intent to influence the fictional world as closely as possibly with the character's intent to influence the fictional world. Does that sound right?

I do think that all rpgs do contain some level of struggle for control of the fiction, though. Any time a player has to roll the dice, he is trying to influence the fiction in some way, with a chance that he might fail.

The posts I've responded to have been where the posters' imagined response to the example from the DMG2 has been to either block the player's input or to pervert it. To me that reads like the GM in question sees player control over the fiction beyond the strict limits of "the words and attempted actions of my character" to be something that they need to stop, or even attack and punish. So I want to know why, for reasons I've already posted.

I also think it's interesting that a lot of the response seems to be that it's okay for players to create elements of the game fiction outside of immediate gameplay--before or after the game itself, but not during gameplay. That does make me scratch my head a little. If a player can be trusted to bring stuff in outside of the game, then why not while in the game?

Quote from: two_fishes;363197I also think it's interesting that a lot of the response seems to be that it's okay for players to create elements of the game fiction outside of immediate gameplay--before or after the game itself, but not during gameplay. That does make me scratch my head a little. If a player can be trusted to bring stuff in outside of the game, then why not while in the game?

Speaking for myself, it's because the proposed additions can then be discussed in the context of what the GM has included, has to include later, and what kind of conflicts, if any, the player's proposed additions might cause. It's much easier to hammer out these issues outside of the regular game session, both because the player and GM can work out the details in a more relaxed manner, and because it won't then eat into the game time of all the other players. In the games I've played in and usually prefer, player influence over the fictional world at large is minimal by design, we like to explore and discover the world our GMs have put together for us. Therefore, the player input is the exception rather than the rule. I imagine if we were to play a game where the player input is more of an established part of the game it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue, although I'm skeptical about whether I would enjoy such a game.

Quote from: Sigmund;363211Speaking for myself, it's because the proposed additions can then be discussed in the context of what the GM has included, has to include later, and what kind of conflicts, if any, the player's proposed additions might cause. It's much easier to hammer out these issues outside of the regular game session, both because the player and GM can work out the details in a more relaxed manner, and because it won't then eat into the game time of all the other players.

Yep.  Which is pretty much what I already said, too.

Really, the concept is not that hard to get.

Quote from: jgants;363218Yep.  Which is pretty much what I already said, too.

Really, the concept is not that hard to get.

I know, right.

Quote from: two_fishes;363197Limiting player influence to "the words and attempted actions of my character" is a pretty common division during gameplay, but I don't think that it has to be an assumed given that it's the default style.

Actually, you should assume it. Why ? Because you are participating in a discussion with gamers who adhere to a specific tradition. Now, I'm not so much for questioning tradition but more like exploring new ways of doing things.

QuoteI suppose you could say that the goal of immersive play (so far as i understand it) is to correlate player intent to influence the fictional world as closely as possibly with the character's intent to influence the fictional world. Does that sound right?

Maybe, I don't really know much about immersion, but "a player influencing the game through her character" does not really have to mean, immersion.

QuoteI do think that all rpgs do contain some level of struggle for control of the fiction, though. Any time a player has to roll the dice, he is trying to influence the fiction in some way, with a chance that he might fail.

See, this is where I think you (because you seem like a smart guy) are being a tad disingenuous. Rolling dice is not "influencing the fiction", it's "participating" in the action. Influencing the fiction, to me, is a matter on intent. Furthermore, there is no struggle because both the GM and the player are bound by the resuts of the dice. None of them have control over the "fiction".

QuoteThe posts I've responded to have been where the posters' imagined response to the example from the DMG2 has been to either block the player's input or to pervert it. To me that reads like the GM in question sees player control over the fiction beyond the strict limits of "the words and attempted actions of my character" to be something that they need to stop, or even attack and punish. So I want to know why, for reasons I've already posted.

And that's the point. It's like you said, in trad play, there's a clearly defined division of how the player interacts with the fiction. Maybe the reason why some folks have trouble with the DMG2 example, is that it departs from tradition.

QuoteI also think it's interesting that a lot of the response seems to be that it's okay for players to create elements of the game fiction outside of immediate gameplay--before or after the game itself, but not during gameplay. That does make me scratch my head a little. If a player can be trusted to bring stuff in outside of the game, then why not while in the game?

I've rambled on long enough. Sigmund (and jgants) answered this pretty well.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: two_fishes;363197I suppose you could say that the goal of immersive play (so far as i understand it) is to correlate player intent to influence the fictional world as closely as possibly with the character's intent to influence the fictional world. Does that sound right?

Yes, but Damn dude, this isn't a PhD review.  It's Roleplaying 101.

Take a character.  Imagine that character is a living breathing person in the setting you're playing in.  Then pretend you're that person, acting as if you were them instead of yourself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;363276Yes, but Damn dude, this isn't a PhD review.  It's Roleplaying 101.

Take a character.  Imagine that character is a living breathing person in the setting you're playing in.  Then pretend you're that person, acting as if you were them instead of yourself.

Rampant ignorance of how normal people actually play games is a pretty common Forge handicap.

Quote from: J Arcane;363297Rampant ignorance of how normal people actually play games is a pretty common Forge handicap.

If Forgite was a character archetype, it'd be a mandatory flaw for them; along with "pretentious" and "pseudo-intellectual".

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;363197Limiting player influence to "the words and attempted actions of my character" is a pretty common division during gameplay, but I don't think that it has to be an assumed given that it's the default style.

It is the default style. Your intention to question the validity of the premise should not cause you to negate the existence of the premise in the first place. That's the sort of logical breakdown that leads theories into lala land.