TheRPGSite

The 100-page thread about Pundit's thrilling victory over the Forge got kind of hard to follow and insane, but there was a point I wanted to get into, if anyone else is interested.

NOTE: I have no interest in evangelizing for a particular style of play, nor do I wish to call anyone a "cunt", so if you'd like to discuss things in a reasonable tone, that will be all right by me.

Quote from: John Morrow;418271I DO NOT WANT NARRATIVE AUTHORITY.

What makes you think I do?  What makes you think most players do?  

The problem with many "story games" is that they do not make narrative authority optional, and once you demand that a player engage in narrative control of the game, you are playing a type of game that makes certain styles of play difficult if not impossible for many.  

So, here's the thing. You do have narrative authority, even when playing the most traditional of games. If you say "My guy draws his dagger and leaps from the wagon!" and the rest of the players (GM included) accept that, okay, that's what your guys does, then you just exercised authority. You narrated something, and we all accepted it as valid. No one questioned your right to establish that your guy was doing that stuff in the fictional world of the game.

I make this argument not to get all nit-picky over semantics (which is only useful for "winning" an internet fight), but to establish a broad and important point. Narrative authority is a BIG part of what makes RPGs what they are.

Like, in Monopoly, if you say your shoe is shaking the bars and yelling while it's in jail, no one cares. We don't have to accept that as "true", because it doesn't matter to the game in any way.

Before I make any statements about different kinds of games sharing this authority in different ways, does that seem legit to everyone? (Everyone = anyone who cares enough to respond).

I think when people say "narrative authority" in regards to RPGs, most of the time they are specifically referring to authority over the plot of the narrative.

I think players have choice, but not authority, even in the example you posit. the player can say "I'm running and attacking with my sword", but the consequences of that action are decided by a fate mechanic or GM caveat. A player can say "I shoot my bow", but in most games they do not have the authority to say "I shoot my bow and the arrow goes right through the goblin's eye, causing him to fall on top of one of his companions", at least not without GM or system approval.

To give a player authority over the plot undermines the GM's job, IMO.

There is no "narrative" in my games. There is the game world.

:cool:
Absolutely,that example is a level/type of Narrative Authority.

Ala Webster;
Narrative: tell (a story)
Authority: 1: expert  2: right,responsibility or power to influence

:hmm::)

good luck getting folk to agree on this contentious term...as evidenced by the posts already made

Yeah, this is pretty much hashed out. Your example of narrative authority isn't something most of us have a problem with. It sounds like a word game to me.

All a player is suppose to have control over in an RPG is the intention to have his character act like his character. The player can no more dictate the actions over NPCs in the game world than he can dictate the actions of other people, animals, or the weather in real life.

In an RPG, when you get to dictate the actions of things other than the personality and intention of the character you are playing, it steps outside of what most of us enjoy.

I've had people tell me their games don't have stories or narratives.

I've had people tell me everything that happens in their game is a story or narrative (often anti-Forge peeps who play trad games, usually White-Wolf players).

I've also had people tell me that the whole purpose of their game is to create a coherent narrative (vs the above "everything is story" view).

So is a discussion even possible unless you can get everyone to agree on what "narrative" and "story" mean within the context of RPGs?  It's hard enough to pinpoint "standard" narrative/story structures outside of gaming, without two people in the hobby who essentially have the same playstyle and who are using the same system telling me two different things about the game they play.

Quote from: Peregrin;418634*snip*
So is a discussion even possible unless you can get everyone to agree on what "narrative" and "story" mean within the context of RPGs?  It's hard enough to pinpoint "standard" narrative/story structures outside of gaming, without two people in the hobby who essentially have the same playstyle and who are using the same system telling me two different things about the game they play.

exactly...
I am willing to give it a go but then I have alot of "free" time!
:cool:

What you're talking about isn't "Narrative", as others have said, it's just a choice your character has made.

You have a dagger, and you drew it.
You were on a wagon, you jumped off it.
Simple choice.

If you were able to create the dagger, or the wagon, or even the foe you are fighting, that is narrative control.

Quote from: BWA;418625So, here's the thing. You do have narrative authority, even when playing the most traditional of games.

I'm going to quote myself in a quote that Malleus Arianorum added to his signature here.

"That's pretty much how post modernism works. Keep dismissing details until there is nothing left, and then declare that it meant nothing all along."

Another way to put is is missing the trees for the forest.  That's what you are doing here.

It is incredibly difficult to have a meaningful discussion about distinctions with a person who insists on using definitions so broad and inclusive that it can mean everything and anything.  If you want to try to understand the distinction I'm making, then I'll be happy to talk to you about it.  If you want to play post-modern word games, then it's going to be a waste of my time and you can have fun playing with yourself.

Quote from: BWA;418625If you say "My guy draws his dagger and leaps from the wagon!" and the rest of the players (GM included) accept that, okay, that's what your guys does, then you just exercised authority. You narrated something, and we all accepted it as valid. No one questioned your right to establish that your guy was doing that stuff in the fictional world of the game.

I do not perceive that as narrative control any more than I'd perceive myself drawing a dagger and leaping from a wagon as narrative control.  I'm describing what my character is deciding to do.  And if the GM were to stop me and ask me to make a Dexterity roll to draw the dagger and an Acrobatics roll to see if my character lands well after leaping from the wagon or even tells me that I can't do it because I forgot that my character was tied down by the bad guys, I'd have no problem for that because the point of the declaration is not to take narrative control and narrate what my happens in the setting but to describe what my character chooses to do and what the intent behind that choice is.  

I will repeat, again, I DO NOT WANT NARRATIVE AUTHORITY.  I want authority over the decisions my character makes.  If the GM accepts my statement of what my character decides to do and the intent behind it and lets it into the broader narrative that you are fixated on without question, that's incidental to what I'm doing.  It's a side-effect.  And claiming that I'm assuming narrative authority is like saying that I drive to wear down the tires of my car, create carbon dioxide, or kill bugs.  Yes, I may do all of those things when I drive but that's not the point of driving and driving doesn't make me the same thing as a bug exterminator.

So what's the point of your observation?  To claim that because I technically exercise narrative control as a side-effect of deciding what my character does that I should have no problem taking deliberate narrative control over issues that have nothing to do with decisions my character might make?  Sorry, but that's as stupid as claiming that because I kill bugs when I drive, I should try to enter a career as an insect control specialist.

Quote from: BWA;418625I make this argument not to get all nit-picky over semantics (which is only useful for "winning" an internet fight), but to establish a broad and important point. Narrative authority is a BIG part of what makes RPGs what they are.

You are making this argument to try to destroy a distinction so you can claim there is no rational decision for making a distinction.  You are not trying to understand.  You are trying to support a shaky claim with post modern semantic silliness.  It's nothing more than sophistry.

Quote from: BWA;418625Like, in Monopoly, if you say your shoe is shaking the bars and yelling while it's in jail, no one cares. We don't have to accept that as "true", because it doesn't matter to the game in any way.

What would it even mean for it to be "true" in Monopoly?  Monopoly is so abstract that nobody imagines the mechanics to represent an imaginary reality.  If I said my shoe was shaking the bars and yelling, it would be a joke designed to make the other players laugh.  How the heck does a shoe shake bars, anyway?

Quote from: BWA;418625Before I make any statements about different kinds of games sharing this authority in different ways, does that seem legit to everyone? (Everyone = anyone who cares enough to respond).

No, it's not legitimate.  You are trying to make a typical post modern argument that abstracts everything to the point where you can claim that it's all the same so that you can dismiss distinctions that anyone but a moron should be able to understand if they actually try.  You are trying to claim that it's all forest so there are no trees.  Sorry, but that's a big steaming pile of crap.

I think what he's saying, though, is that in a trad rpg, authority stops at your PC.  Which is, of course, non-controversial, really.

At the other end of the spectrum is a game where all narrative authority is shared and there are no limits - a story-game where every player has full authority over everything.  Personally I don't have much interest in that sort of game.

What I do occasionally enjoy, however, is an otherwise trad rpg in which occasionally the GM cedes a bit of 'narrative control' (or whatever we're calling it this week) where it's fun for everyone, makes sense, and doesn't overmuch tamper with immersion.  This is noncontroversial when it's done in a way where the GM has final say; but might appear marginally more controversial depending on how it actually goes down.

To attempt to demonstrate what I mean, here's three examples that aren't really that different.  Let's say we're playing some kind of pulp or superhero game, and the PCs have just entered a mad scientist's lair.

Example One (vetted suggestion)
GM: ...and as you burst through the secured doors, you all step into Doctor Antipathy's laboratory.  The place is chock-a-block with bunsen burners and test-tubes, electronic panels with flashing lights, that sort of thing, and a Frankenstein-style slab table covered with a sheet.
Player1: Ooh, is there one of those electric globe thingies?
Player2: Van de Graaf generator.
Player1: Yeah, one of them.
GM: Yes, there's one in the corner.

Example Two (solicitations, vetted)
GM: ...and as you burst through the secured doors, you all step into Doctor Antipathy's laboratory.  The place is chock-a-block with bunsen burners and test-tubes, electronic panels with flashing lights, that sort of thing, and a Frankenstein-style slab table covered with a sheet.  Any classic tropes I'm missing that might be in here?
Player 1: Ooh, one of those electric globe thingies!
Player 2: Van de Graaf generator?
GM: Yeah, cool, there would totally be one of those.  Anything else?
Player 3: um...some kind of in-progress death ray?
GM: Sure, yeah.
Player 2: How about a chandelier I can swing on?
GM: I know you're longing to use that acrobatics skill, but no, there's no chandelier.  Not appropriate, really - I was fishing for mad-scientist crap I might've forgotten.
Player 2: Got it.  Jet pack?
GM: Hmm.  Okay, there's a jet pack on the wall.  No idea if it's functional, of course.


Example Three (players have full narrative control by some means)
[let's skip the repetition bit, shall we?]
GM: Yeah, cool, there would totally be one of those  Anything else?
Player 3: My old pal Argus the Head-taker is lurking there - turns out he's been hunting Doctor Antipathy as well.
GM: What?  We last saw him in Morocco.  He fell off a cliff, dude.  That...makes no sense.
Player 3: I think it does, and I'm spending a token on it.  He's totally there.
GM: Shit.  So much for Doc Antipathy being a rough fight...


Of the three examples above, Example One is wholly noncontroversial, I think.  Happens all the time in a trad rpg.  "Is there a...?"  "Yes/No/hmm roll for it".  Example two is definitely more thespy, but the GM is in firm control.  Example three?  May be a slight exaggeration.  But this is the area that starts to piss some people off and compel them to wonder if what's being played is an rpg at all.

Quote from: Cranewings;418633Yeah, this is pretty much hashed out. Your example of narrative authority isn't something most of us have a problem with. It sounds like a word game to me.

Quote from: John Morrow;418650If you want to play post-modern word games, then it's going to be a waste of my time and you can have fun playing with yourself.

Okay, easy, guys. That's why I started with a question.

Like I said in my first post, playing semantic games is dumb and lame, and it is of value only to people who derive satisfaction from "winning" arguments with strangers online. Let's assume none of us are those people.

So, if everyone wants to, let's assume that the other people in the thread, while they may be wrong or mistaken or confused, are not lying or trying to trick you or Win The Thread.

Let's start with a basic definition, which I see not everyone agrees on...

Quote from: TristramEvans;418627I think when people say "narrative authority" in regards to RPGs, most of the time they are specifically referring to authority over the plot of the narrative.

Okay, sure. But I'm not talking (at the moment) about different styles of play, I'm just talking about fundamental stuff. The stuff that makes role-playing games different from strategy board games or Trivial Pursuit.

So let's leave the somewhat tricky concept of "plot" aside, and just say that narrative authority means "The right to say stuff about the imaginary game world that everyone at the table agrees to."

Quote from: Benoist;418629There is no "narrative" in my games. There is the game world.

Again, I'm not trying to slip anything past you. I am using narrative in the neutral, mechanical sense of the word.

When we play an RPG, we don't actually see or hear or sense anything about the game world; the game world doesn't really exist.

Instead, when you and I sit down to play D&D, every single thing that "happens" in the game was narrated by someone. You're the GM, and you said (narrated) that some orcs attacked, and I said (narrated) that I was drawing my sword and counter-attacking and then we rolled some dice.

That's all I mean by "narrative". Is that all acceptable so far?

Quote from: CRKrueger;418648If you were able to create the dagger, or the wagon, or even the foe you are fighting, that is narrative control.

Even if the player were to assume the presence of a prop in a scene and describe an action and intent that includes that prop, so long as the GM has the authority to say "No" (which, curiously enough, people with an obsession over narrative control seem to have a big problem with), then the player isn't really exercising narrative control. They are making narrative suggestions to a GM that exercises the control and authority over the situation.  I want the GM to have that control.  I want the GM to say "No" if something I assume isn't true in the game reality or ask for a roll if there is uncertainly about how things will turn out.

Oh, and the "authority" part.

Now, when Benoist the GM said that orcs attacked, I didn't disagree. I didn't refuse to go along until he spent some of his "Monster Attack" points, or made an "Threat" roll, or whatever. Instead, I took the orc attack as an established fact; because in D&D, whatever the GM says happens - that shit happens.

Because we all grant him that authority.

Similarly, when I said I counter-attacked, he didn't disagree, and say "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything." Because that would be seriously lame, and - while we all know that can happens in some not-fun and not-healthy games - that's not how D&D works. When I say what my character does, everyone accepts it, including the GM.

Now, he might fail in his action, and the GM might tell me I need to engage with the game mechanics in some way (ie - make a saving throw, roll an ability check, etc), but generally, when it comes to my character, I get to decide what he does or says or feels or thinks. I have authority over that character.

Yeah? All in agreement? Or accusations of trickery and lies and known Forge-sympathies?

Quote from: BWA;418655Okay, easy, guys. That's why I started with a question.

Like I said in my first post, playing semantic games is dumb and lame, and it is of value only to people who derive satisfaction from "winning" arguments with strangers online. Let's assume none of us are those people.

So, if everyone wants to, let's assume that the other people in the thread, while they may be wrong or mistaken or confused, are not lying or trying to trick you or Win The Thread.

Let's start with a basic definition, which I see not everyone agrees on...



Okay, sure. But I'm not talking (at the moment) about different styles of play, I'm just talking about fundamental stuff. The stuff that makes role-playing games different from strategy board games or Trivial Pursuit.

So let's leave the somewhat tricky concept of "plot" aside, and just say that narrative authority means "The right to say stuff about the imaginary game world that everyone at the table agrees to."



Again, I'm not trying to slip anything past you. I am using narrative in the neutral, mechanical sense of the word.

When we play an RPG, we don't actually see or hear or sense anything about the game world; the game world doesn't really exist.

Instead, when you and I sit down to play D&D, every single thing that "happens" in the game was narrated by someone. You're the GM, and you said (narrated) that some orcs attacked, and I said (narrated) that I was drawing my sword and counter-attacking and then we rolled some dice.

That's all I mean by "narrative". Is that all acceptable so far?

Nope.  Speech is not Narration.  Every accepted definition of Narration (look at just about every online dictionary you can find) includes creating or narrating a story as part of the narrative process.

Quote from: BWA;418657Because we all grant him that authority.

You don't grant him the authority, the game style grants him that authority.  You accept that authority when you agree to play the game.

Quote from: BWA;418657When I say what my character does, everyone accepts it, including the GM.... generally, when it comes to my character, I get to decide what he does or says or feels or thinks. I have authority over that character.

You have no innate authority over your character.  You character is one element of many in the GM's setting.  He has authority over all elements of the setting, including your character.  However, this being a role-playing game, you being in control of your character is the default state.  If, however, you fail a fear check, you might run despite your wishes.  The GM possesses knowledge you do not (like the knowledge that the magic ring you put on is actually a cursed item and the GM can take control of your character when he wants to.

If you keep trying to take terms that have very specific meanings in Storygaming theory like "narrative" and "authority" and generalize them in an attempt to get people to say "Oh yeah, Narrative Authority is part and parcel of every RPG." you're never gonna get past the post-modernist Forge wanker accusations.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418659You don't grant him the authority, the game style grants him that authority.  You accept that authority when you agree to play the game.

Sure, I guess. Isn't that semantics, though? By playing the game, I am granting him that authority. I can choose to leave at any time.

That's all I mean there.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418659You have no innate authority over your character.  You character is one element of many in the GM's setting.  He has authority over all elements of the setting, including your character.  However, this being a role-playing game, you being in control of your character is the default state.  If, however, you fail a fear check, you might run despite your wishes.  

I'll agree with you about fear checks and that stuff. But those are special circumstances, yeah? In general, I get to say what my character does. If the GM chooses to exercise authority over my character (outside of a few special circumstances), he's kind of being a jerk, right?

Quote from: BWA;418660Sure, I guess. Isn't that semantics, though? By playing the game, I am granting him that authority. I can choose to leave at any time.
That's all I mean there.

Nope, you're not granting him anything.  You are simply choosing to participate in his game or not.  You're complaining about semantics yet you're still trying to sneak by loaded words.

Quote from: BWA;418660I'll agree with you about fear checks and that stuff. But those are special circumstances, yeah? In general, I get to say what my character does. If the GM chooses to exercise authority over my character (outside of a few special circumstances), he's kind of being a jerk, right?

If the GM is exercising authority over your character in a way consistent with what's happening in the setting - he's doing his job.

If the GM is exercising authority over your character in a way inconsistent with what's happening in the setting - he's being a jerk.

Generally speaking, you control your character's choices.  The ruleset and the GM together determine how those choices impact the game world.

Quote from: BWA;418655Let's assume none of us are those people.

Then please start trying to understand the distinctions that people are made rather than using broad definitions to try to erase those distinctions.  In other words, start by understanding the distinctions rather than by trying to erase them.

Quote from: BWA;418655Okay, sure. But I'm not talking (at the moment) about different styles of play, I'm just talking about fundamental stuff. The stuff that makes role-playing games different from strategy board games or Trivial Pursuit.

The stuff that makes role-playing distinct from a board game can be found in the term "role-playing".  The player's "piece" in the game is a role in a fictional setting that a single player focuses on as their perspective in the game.  That perspective is why role-playing games (and related computer games) have fog of war effects and hidden information.  The players don't normally view the game from an omnipotent perspective, like they do in a game of Monopoly or Chess.

Defining role-playing games as a narrative exercise is to downplay that defining component in order to define the hobby as interactive storytelling.  While some people certainly play that way, other people don't and have no interest in interactive storytelling.  They want to play a role.  That's why it's called a role-playing game.  Similarly, there are people who want to play a game who will point out that that's why it's called a role-playing game.  The people who try to define the hobby in a way that excludes "role-playing" or "game" will inevitably miss what a lot of people get out of the hobby, just like people who engage in interactive storytelling feel left out if someone defines the hobby as only role-playing and game.  And that's because the hobby isn't one thing.  It's a bunch of closely related hobbies that overlap, interact, and share certain features.

Quote from: BWA;418655So let's leave the somewhat tricky concept of "plot" aside, and just say that narrative authority means "The right to say stuff about the imaginary game world that everyone at the table agrees to."

That's an awful definition because it destroys a distinction that's critical to what most people actually do.  Narrative authority, if we must dwell on it, is the final authority to decide what does or doesn't enter the imaginary reality and in many traditional games, that authority lies solely with the GM.  What the players do is make narrative suggestions, but if the GM can decline those suggestions, they players do not have meaningful authority over what happens any more than a lawyer has legal authority in a courtroom to decide how a case will be decided.  A lawyer can make a case and apply the rules and appeal to the judge, but it's ultimately the judge and perhaps a jury that has the actual authority in the courtroom.  

I do not expect or want the authority for everyone at the table to automatically accept that anything I say that my character does automatically happens.  What I want to do is say what my character tries to do and perhaps the intent behind it and then the GM (or perhaps the rules and dice) have the authority to determine what actually happens in the imaginary setting.  That's not authority.  It's not narrative authority.  And framing it as "narrative authority" is wrong.

Quote from: BWA;418655Again, I'm not trying to slip anything past you. I am using narrative in the neutral, mechanical sense of the word.

The problem is with the word "authority" more than the word "narrative", but that can be taken too far, too.

Quote from: BWA;418655When we play an RPG, we don't actually see or hear or sense anything about the game world; the game world doesn't really exist.

When I think in character, that's actually pretty real.  I've had characters act on unconscious insight and thoughts without understanding why they are doing what they are doing.  So when I think in character, I'm making something exist that has some sort of life of it's own.  If you are skeptical of what I'm talking about, consider this old rec.games.frp.advocacy post from Mary Kuhner (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/5f36f084b8e1fb3f?dmode=source):

Quote from: Mary KuhnerWhen I'm playing I'm not generally aware of the body posture/voice mannerisms/adrenaline reaction stuff; I'm not a good actor and I have a terrible time doing this on purpose.  I know I do it because I've tried watching myself to see what "getting into character" means.  I got curious when my husband walked into a room once, looked at me, and before I said a word said "Hi, Ratty." How did he know?  Ratty is a street kid, doesn't care about dirt, and is timid; the combination means that he's generally touching things with his whole body in a way I wouldn't normally do.  When my husband saw me I was wound around a grimy stairway railing, trying to think what Ratty was going to do in that night's game....

In this example, the character that Mary Kuhner was thinking of was real enough and distinct enough that her husband could not only recognize that she was thinking in character but knew which character she was thinking as and addressed that character.  No, the character and setting aren't real in any physical sense, but I'm not sure I'd agree that nothing really exists.  After all, what is a personality, memory, or emotion but information in a brain?  As such, I think a character can essentially exist distinct from the player.  And the idea that a mind can be distinct from the reality of the setting it inhabits should not be alien to you if you've seen the Matrix or any other virtual reality movie.

Quote from: BWA;418655Instead, when you and I sit down to play D&D, every single thing that "happens" in the game was narrated by someone. You're the GM, and you said (narrated) that some orcs attacked, and I said (narrated) that I was drawing my sword and counter-attacking and then we rolled some dice.

That's not really true, either.  Things can happen in the setting that only happen in the mind of one of the participants and are never narrated to the others.  One example are the thoughts a character may have while thinking in character (when I discuss those with the GM, it's often outside of the game rather than part of the game narrative) and other example is the GM tracking background events that the players don't know are happening.  For all intents and purposes, those things happen in the fictional setting just as people that you don't know and aren't aware of are doing things on the other side of the planet.

The problem is that you are letting the tail wag the dog.  You are staring with the assumption that the game is a narrative and that the narrative is the most important thing and you are then folding, bending, spindling, and mutilating everything to fit into the expectations of your assumption.  That's called "begging the question" when making an argument.

Quote from: BWA;418655That's all I mean by "narrative". Is that all acceptable so far?

No.

Quote from: BWA;418657Now, when Benoist the GM said that orcs attacked, I didn't disagree. I didn't refuse to go along until he spent some of his "Monster Attack" points, or made an "Threat" roll, or whatever. Instead, I took the orc attack as an established fact; because in D&D, whatever the GM says happens - that shit happens.

Because we all grant him that authority.

Correct.  In a traditional game, the GM has the "narrative authority".  The players do not have the authority to block what the GM says happens, except by leaving the table.  The players can appeal to the GM to make something else happen, but the GM holds the final and real authority.  

Quote from: BWA;418657Similarly, when I said I counter-attacked, he didn't disagree, and say "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything." Because that would be seriously lame, and - while we all know that can happens in some not-fun and not-healthy games - that's not how D&D works. When I say what my character does, everyone accepts it, including the GM.

Here is where you are shifting the definition.  Being allowed to do something is not the same as having the unchallenged authority to insist it happened.  In a traditional game, the GM has the authority to say, "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything," if they choose to exercise it.  Nor is the GM doing that necessarily lame, not fun, or not healthy unless the players have serious authority issues and, like my 2 and 4 year old, don't take to being told "no" by the person with authority without pouting or throwing a tantrum.  In other words, what you are describing is not how D&D works.  

First, the GM has the authority to say, "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything."  But more importantly, you don't really have the authority to describe what actually happens as a result of your declared actions.  You can't say, "I counter-attack and slay the orc."  The game doesn't give you the authority to say that your character slays the orc nor even whether you hit the orc with your weapon.  The game rules expect you to roll to hit and roll for damage and then the rules have narrative authority over the situation (see this old Hunter Logan column rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/dream20jan03.html) influenced by discussions that we had while I was briefly on the Forge and notice that control can lie in the GM, players, or rules).  So all the player is really doing here is stating their intent but both the GM or the rules can prevent what the player declares from actually happening in the "narrative".  Why?  Because the players don't really have "authority" in any meaningful sense of that word.  

But Forge people know that, don't they?  Isn't that why they constrain the GM with rules and player authority and isn't that why they give players the authority to trump the rules and GM?  If players really have meaningful "narrative authority" in traditional games, then what's the point of story-games going out of their way to give players authority you claim that they already have?

Quote from: BWA;418657Now, he might fail in his action, and the GM might tell me I need to engage with the game mechanics in some way (ie - make a saving throw, roll an ability check, etc), but generally, when it comes to my character, I get to decide what he does or says or feels or thinks. I have authority over that character.

You have authority to declare what your character decides to do.  Whether or not that actually happens in the imaginary game world is out of your control in a traditional game.  You are confusing making a declaration of intent with the authority to decide what happens and they are not the same thing.  

Quote from: BWA;418657Yeah? All in agreement? Or accusations of trickery and lies and known Forge-sympathies?

Not in agreement.  Getting colder.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418659If you keep trying to take terms that have very specific meanings in Storygaming theory like "narrative" and "authority" and generalize them in an attempt to get people to say "Oh yeah, Narrative Authority is part and parcel of every RPG." you're never gonna get past the post-modernist Forge wanker accusations.

I think the goal is to claim that there is no way a player can refuse to assume narrative authority over the game.  And I assume the follow-on is that if one is forced to assume even a small amount of narrative authority that you should just dive in and embrace as much as possible.

Which is why I am pointing out that there is no such thing as a "narrative" in my games.
We are not "telling stories." There is no "narrative." Ergo, there is no such thing as "narrative authority."

Quote from: BWA;418655So let's leave the somewhat tricky concept of "plot" aside, and just say that narrative authority means "The right to say stuff about the imaginary game world that everyone at the table agrees to."

Except that this is not what it means to most people; its not what it means to the Forge agenda, its not what it means to regular roleplayers.  
This is just a typical Forge tactic of trying to win the argument by demanding that everyone acquiesce to bullshit jargon that brings with it all kinds of implicit assumptions that creates a completely unrealistic perspective on the situation.

QuoteWhen we play an RPG, we don't actually see or hear or sense anything about the game world; the game world doesn't really exist.

And there you go again. You demand that we start the argument by assuming that Emulation and Immersion are useless.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;418657Oh, and the "authority" part.

Now, when Benoist the GM said that orcs attacked, I didn't disagree. I didn't refuse to go along until he spent some of his "Monster Attack" points, or made an "Threat" roll, or whatever. Instead, I took the orc attack as an established fact; because in D&D, whatever the GM says happens - that shit happens.

Because we all grant him that authority.

Similarly, when I said I counter-attacked, he didn't disagree, and say "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything." Because that would be seriously lame, and - while we all know that can happens in some not-fun and not-healthy games - that's not how D&D works. When I say what my character does, everyone accepts it, including the GM.

Now, he might fail in his action, and the GM might tell me I need to engage with the game mechanics in some way (ie - make a saving throw, roll an ability check, etc), but generally, when it comes to my character, I get to decide what he does or says or feels or thinks. I have authority over that character.

Yeah? All in agreement? Or accusations of trickery and lies and known Forge-sympathies?

You get to decide what the PC ATTEMPTS. Nothing else.

But so what? You're trying to twist around this situation, "control of character", to mean that somehow Narrative control of the universe is a player right from the beginning or something. That shit won't fly here.

If that's really your only point, then the only other thing you could be arguing for would be that we throw out what the Forge has been trying to promote (and what regular gamers everywhere have REJECTED) as "narrative control", and rebrand it as something it doesn't in any way need to be rebranded as. "The player controls his character's choices" works just fine without being expanded into "narrative control" and the only reason to even attempt to do so is because you are trying to find a back-door into then trying to push GM-castrating Forge Swine "narrativism" on gaming.


RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;418660Sure, I guess. Isn't that semantics, though? By playing the game, I am granting him that authority. I can choose to leave at any time.

That's all I mean there.

Yes, it is Semantics, and like a good little foucaultian post-modernist Swine, you are trying to use Semantics to dominate the conversation.  There are loaded assumptions behind that semantic difference.

In the regular RPG hobby, the assumption is that the GM's authority is inherent to the game, the second you start to play the game the GM is God, and your only option is to quit if you don't like how he plays.

In the version of Semantic warfare you are trying to impose, the GM's authority is some kind of an ongoing constantly-negotiated social contract, where his power depends upon a constant and repeatedly affirmed consent on the part of the players as they play. Implying that the players should have the power to over-rule the GM if they agree at some point that it is right for them to.  The GM is not god, his power is not absolute, it is granted to him by players with the implication that they can take it away in some form other than by quitting the game.

That's a very big difference in that it changes the fundamental assumptions of the game and the hobby as a whole.  But of course, you know that, because its part and parcel of the Forge's failed "revolution".

RPGPundit

Jesus walking on the water, you guys are paranoid. I repeat, I'm not trying to TRICK YOU into agreeing to something you don't like. I'm just trying to talk about how different gamers see things differently.

If you're convinced that I'm just being "sneaky" or this topic gets you riled up, then by all means, feel free to ignore this thread. There's tons of others.

Since we're not agreeing on the premise of the thread at all, let's back it up:

Quote from: CRKrueger;418663Nope, you're not granting him anything.  You are simply choosing to participate in his game or not.  

Okay, I'll stipulate that, in many cases, the very act of sitting down at the gaming table is an implicit granting of authority to the GM. So, for games like that, participation = granting authority. I don't think we're actually disagreeing here, we're just getting a little hung up on terminology.

But, in a very basic sense, a player in the most rigidly traditional game is still granting that authority, wouldn't you agree? Even if, as you say, the player's ONLY choice is participate or don't participate, that's still a choice. He can walk away, or not play. The GM can't FORCE anything; it's still a social activity between friends.

Do you buy that?

Quote from: John Morrow;418666Narrative authority, if we must dwell on it, is the final authority to decide what does or doesn't enter the imaginary reality and in many traditional games, that authority lies solely with the GM.  What the players do is make narrative suggestions, but if the GM can decline those suggestions, they players do not have meaningful authority over what happens any more than a lawyer has legal authority in a courtroom to decide how a case will be decided.  

John, if the idea of "dwelling on narrative authority" bothers you, don't read and post in a thread called "Narrative authority and role-playing games".

That said, your stance on this is interesting to me, because it seems so hardcore to me. Leaving new-school/indie/story/Forge games aside completely, just talking about, say, mainstream D&D, it seems to me that lots of regular, American, God-fearing gamers would not characterize their statements about their characters actions as "suggestions".

If we're playing D&D, and the GM says "Okay, the tunnel goes right and left. What do you do?" and I say "My paladin goes left, sword drawn!" then I think in MOST REGULAR GAMES, everyone will accept that.

Are you really saying that, in your games, that comment is treated as a suggestion, and everyone turns to the GM to decide whether or not the paladin goes left and draws his sword? (Assuming nothing out of the ordinary is happening, like he's secretly cursed, or the NPC thief glued his sword into the sheath, unbeknownst to him).

Quote from: John Morrow;418666The problem is that you are letting the tail wag the dog.  You are staring with the assumption that the game is a narrative and that the narrative is the most important thing...

Nope. I'm not doing that. I don't even think that. I like playing my character too. And when I'm GMing, I like seeing what the characters do in response to threats. Don't assume I'm doing secret sneaky things! Seriously, I'm not.

Quote from: Benoist;418675We are not "telling stories." There is no "narrative." Ergo, there is no such thing as "narrative authority."

Benoist, I think you're disagreeing with my word choice here, which is preventing us from actually getting down to anything substantial.

What words would you use to describe the process by which players and GMs decide on what happens in the fictional environment of the game? I think "narration" is a good word, because that covers people verbally describing the actions of fictional characters. But I'm not married to it; I'll accept something else.

And, to reiterate, I agree that we are not "telling stories"; RPGs are more subtle than that, and - most importantly - they are GAMES.

Quote from: BWA;418691Even if, as you say, the player's ONLY choice is participate or don't participate, that's still a choice. He can walk away, or not play. The GM can't FORCE anything; it's still a social activity between friends.
Do you buy that?

Right, I can't force you to play, and you can't grant me authority.  As GM of this game, I have the authority already, you accept my authority when you choose to sit down.  You leave my authority when you get up and leave.  At no time do you grant me something I do not already possess.

Quote from: BWA;418691And, to reiterate, I agree that we are not "telling stories"; RPGs are more subtle than that, and - most importantly - they are GAMES.

Ok, then you should have no problem giving up the term "narrative" as its definition lies solely in the realm of storytelling and literary creation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418695Right, I can't force you to play, and you can't grant me authority.  As GM of this game, I have the authority already, you accept my authority when you choose to sit down.  You leave my authority when you get up and leave.  At no time do you grant me something I do not already possess.

Sorry, that's just silly. Unless there are a body of laws or rules surrounding something that are outside of the participants (say, rules of decorum or common morality) then RPG tabletop play falls under general social rules for playing a game. We either give authority to the rules themselves (as in games like poker) or to the arbitrator of the rules (as in baseball; though, like RPGs, there are rules even the refs must follow).

In chess, if we do not like how things are going (or at least we think they should be different) we appeal to higher authority - in this case, the rules as written. In the case of cooperative type activities (like RPGs and many sports) we appeal to authority in the form of the GM/Narrator/Viking Hat Wearer. In the case of "reffed" games, we can replace the authority figure if we feel that figure is not fair (though it generally takes all participants to agree that this isn't fair, unless there's an even higher authority).

You, the person, do not have authority until you step into the role of GM. We, the players, grant that authority to the role of GM for a variety of reasons, practical and fun. If we do not accept you in that role, your authority doesn't exist, no matter how much you might wave 'round the great horned hat.

How the GM can exercise that authority is the subject of much debate. And players within the same group do not always agree on how much authority to give. Some give total, some nearly none; it is in the middle of course where we argue the most. Especially when all are not agreed on how much authority to cede.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741Sorry, that's just silly. Unless there are a body of laws or rules surrounding something that are outside of the participants (say, rules of decorum or common morality) then RPG tabletop play falls under general social rules for playing a game. We either give authority to the rules themselves (as in games like poker) or to the arbitrator of the rules (as in baseball; though, like RPGs, there are rules even the refs must follow).

I don't know what role-playing books you've been reading but I have shelves and boxes full of them and the vast majority of them pretty clearly have rules that define the authority of the GM and players and discuss how the game should be played, possibly even with examples.  So, yes, in traditional games, players are giving authority to the rules which, in turn, give "narrative authority" to the GM.  As RPGPundit said, claiming that "the GM's authority is some kind of an ongoing constantly-negotiated social contract, where his power depends upon a constant and repeatedly affirmed consent on the part of the players as they play," is what's silly.  

If I agree to play Chess, I'm agreeing to follow the rules of Chess and taking turns, waiting for the other player, moving one piece at a time, moving the pieces in certain ways, and so on, and not negotiating the rules throughout the game, even though I can always choose to get up and quit.  Similarly, if I agree to play D&D, I'm agreeing to use the player and GM structure detailed in the rules.  I mean, in that case, we're talking about a game that has different rulebooks for the GM and player and many traditional games have the same thing, even if it's simply a different section in the rule book.  In the past, some went so far as to say that players should not read the GM rules.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741In chess, if we do not like how things are going (or at least we think they should be different) we appeal to higher authority - in this case, the rules as written.

If you don't like the way things are going because you are losing, then you have the same choice we were saying you had with an RPG.  You can either live with it or get up and walk away.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741In the case of cooperative type activities (like RPGs and many sports) we appeal to authority in the form of the GM/Narrator/Viking Hat Wearer. In the case of "reffed" games, we can replace the authority figure if we feel that figure is not fair (though it generally takes all participants to agree that this isn't fair, unless there's an even higher authority).

You are purposely trying to downplay the fact that it is the rules of most RPGs and sports that define the authority of that "referee".  And in a role-playing game, replacing the GM is essentially getting up and leaving the table because continuing the same game with a different GM generally isn't an option. You can stretch the meaning of "consent" to include not leaving the table, but that sounds an awful lot like a date rapist claiming that a drunk woman gave him her consent because she didn't stop his advances and didn't leave.  "Passive consent" is a way of looking at it that only a lawyer, post-modernist, or a person with an agenda could love.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741You, the person, do not have authority until you step into the role of GM. We, the players, grant that authority to the role of GM for a variety of reasons, practical and fun. If we do not accept you in that role, your authority doesn't exist, no matter how much you might wave 'round the great horned hat.

That's true of everything in life.  You can ignore the flashing police lights in your rearview mirror and keep driving, too.  So what's the point of this observation and framing consent in those terms?

Quote from: Mencelus;418741How the GM can exercise that authority is the subject of much debate. And players within the same group do not always agree on how much authority to give. Some give total, some nearly none; it is in the middle of course where we argue the most. Especially when all are not agreed on how much authority to cede.

How the GM can exercise that authority is the subject of much debate among a relatively small group of people who are unsatisfied with the traditional norm just as there are a small number of sports fans who debate the roles of referees and how they make calls in various sports.  There is far more debate over good GMs and bad GMs (just as there is far more debate over good referees and bad referees and good calls and bad calls) than there is over whether the GM should have authority over the game because most people aren't looking for "narrative authority" over the game.

I'm curious, though, for an example of a game that gives the GM nearly no authority.  Do you have one or more in mind that are played by more than a handful of people?

This seems to be a highly theoretical discussion. Why not agree on using a certain set of RPG rules to make it a bit more concrete? Or which of the games that hands players narrative authority is a big offender? Otherwise both sides are just talking at each other, ignoring what the other side says and pressing the playback button once it is their turn again.

Quote from: BWA;418625Before I make any statements about different kinds of games sharing this authority in different ways, does that seem legit to everyone? (Everyone = anyone who cares enough to respond).

Sure. I would like too hear what you have to say about this subject.

Some caveats: I know nothing about the forge or usually pay much attention to game design philosophy. It is my first time, be gentle.

My group is planning to play HeroQuest in the near future, but I am really only familiar with the setting material. I am told it is a narrativist game.

-Hans

Yeah, this seems like this is mostly wordplay in general.  

1) "narration"

In ordinary English, saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" is narration - as is saying "Regdar finds a secret compartment in the bottom of the chest."  However, they are narration about different subjects - and John Morrow's preference to only say things about what his PC thinks and attempts is completely valid.  Also, it is common within both traditional RPG and story game circles to use "narrational authority" to specifically mean narration over subjects other than the PCs.  i.e. There are plenty of Story Games threads where people use "games with narrational authority" to not include traditional RPGs.  

2) "authority"

It doesn't make sense to me to say that a GM with no players has "authority."  What's that authority over?  I think that it only makes sense to say the GM has authority once they have players - so the players both grant the authority by agreeing to play the game, and accept it when it is used.

Quote from: BWA;418625NOTE: I have no interest in evangelizing for a particular style of play, nor do I wish to call anyone a "cunt", so if you'd like to discuss things in a reasonable tone, that will be all right by me.

Except you are evangelizing a particular style of play by not discussing it with intellectual honesty.

So, you are a cunt.

Quote from: BWA;418691I'm just trying to talk about how different gamers see things differently.

No, you aren't.  The problem is that you are trying to get us to agree to see things your way rather than trying to understand why we see them differently.  A lot of gamers, probably the vast majority, do not see what they do as exercises in "narrative authority" and whenever we try to explain why what we are doing isn't an exercise in "narrative authority", you want to loosen the definitions so that you can still insist that it is.  If you really want to understand the difference, then stop trying to insist there is no difference and erase it by labeling everything identically and, instead, try to understand the distinction and the different labels people are using.  It's really that simple.  

Quote from: BWA;418691Okay, I'll stipulate that, in many cases, the very act of sitting down at the gaming table is an implicit granting of authority to the GM. So, for games like that, participation = granting authority. I don't think we're actually disagreeing here, we're just getting a little hung up on terminology.

The whole idea of "implicit granting of authority" is essentially "passive consent".  If the players don't object to it, then they consent to it and grant the authority to do it.  Really?  Do you really believe that's how consent and granting authority works?

Quote from: BWA;418691But, in a very basic sense, a player in the most rigidly traditional game is still granting that authority, wouldn't you agree? Even if, as you say, the player's ONLY choice is participate or don't participate, that's still a choice. He can walk away, or not play. The GM can't FORCE anything; it's still a social activity between friends.

I don't agree that indifference or not objecting is the functional equivalent of consent or a granting of authority.  In fact, I think that's potentially a very dangerous and malicious way to look at consent and the granting of authority.  To agree, consent, or grant in any meaningful way requires a conscious understanding that one is agreeing, consenting, or granting something.  

Quote from: BWA;418691Do you buy that?

No, no more than a buy any other claim that being there or not leaving equals consent.  To consent or grant something implies an understanding and conscious decision, not some sort of "implied" decision that could simply be indifference.

Quote from: BWA;418691John, if the idea of "dwelling on narrative authority" bothers you, don't read and post in a thread called "Narrative authority and role-playing games".

If you don't want me to comment, then don't start a discussion with a quote from me.

Quote from: BWA;418691That said, your stance on this is interesting to me, because it seems so hardcore to me. Leaving new-school/indie/story/Forge games aside completely, just talking about, say, mainstream D&D, it seems to me that lots of regular, American, God-fearing gamers would not characterize their statements about their characters actions as "suggestions".

It's not hardcore at all.  In fact, over the years, I've played with plenty of passive casual role-players who are quite happy with the GM telling them what happens and even telling them how their own characters react to some things.  And the reason why I'm characterizing their statements as "suggestions" is to counter your claim that they are exercising "narrative control", which is also not how the vast majority of role-playes would characterize their statements about their character's actions.  

You want to frame it as "narrative authority" because you believe the players are making those statements as an exercise in narrative control but I doubt most players see it that way.  In fact, I suspect most see it as telling the GM what their character does and the GM either accepts it into the narrative or doesn't, but the authority over what does or doesn't enter the narrative is with the GM.  If it's inappropriate to call what the players are doing a "suggestion", it's even more inappropriate to call it "authority" because that's not what it is at all in traditional role-playing games.  This is why most groups tend to describe a game or setting as being the GM's game or setting.

Quote from: BWA;418691If we're playing D&D, and the GM says "Okay, the tunnel goes right and left. What do you do?" and I say "My paladin goes left, sword drawn!" then I think in MOST REGULAR GAMES, everyone will accept that.

Sure, but that's not an exercise in authority, any more than a motorist is exercising authority if a police car passes them without pulling them over.  The authority remains with the police officer, even if they allow a driver to control their own vehicle without interference.  "Authority" does not mean what you are trying to make it mean.  Expanding the definition of a word so that it no longer means what most people think it means and so it can mean just about anything is exactly the sort of post modern nonsense I talked about in my first reply.

Quote from: BWA;418691Are you really saying that, in your games, that comment is treated as a suggestion, and everyone turns to the GM to decide whether or not the paladin goes left and draws his sword? (Assuming nothing out of the ordinary is happening, like he's secretly cursed, or the NPC thief glued his sword into the sheath, unbeknownst to him).

What I'm saying is that nobody would automatically object if the GM told the player that the paladin did not in fact actually draw their sword or turn left in the game world for some reason.  That the GM passively allows the statements of the player to happen in the game world and enter the "narrative" does not mean that the GM has ceded that authority to the player or that the player has it in any meaningful sense.  The player does not have the power to decide what does or doesn't happen in the game world in a traditional role-playing game.  The GM has that power.  Defining "authority" independently of that actual power twists the meaning of the term.

Quote from: BWA;418691Nope. I'm not doing that. I don't even think that. I like playing my character too. And when I'm GMing, I like seeing what the characters do in response to threats. Don't assume I'm doing secret sneaky things! Seriously, I'm not.

And that colors your interpretation of what's going on.  Years ago, on the Pyramid message boards, I had a discussion with Bill Stoddard where he talked about how his enjoyment as GM came from watching the players play their characters and I pointed out that, as a player, what I get out of role-playing occurs primarily inside of my head where nobody can see it and I really don't care if they do or don't.  By describing the game in terms of  a "narrative" and things that aren't talked about as not being real, you are ignoring a large part of what many people get out of playing, which doesn't pass across the table.

Quote from: BWA;418691What words would you use to describe the process by which players and GMs decide on what happens in the fictional environment of the game? I think "narration" is a good word, because that covers people verbally describing the actions of fictional characters. But I'm not married to it; I'll accept something else.

The problem with how you are using the word "narrative" is that you are using it both to describe what people say their character is doing and the acceptance that what they say as what actually happened.  A "process" happens between those two things, which is where the "authority" is exercised.

In my experience, when a person at the table describes what a character does or (usually in the case of the GM) something else that happens in the game, it's provisional pending approval.  It's essentially a suggestion, not a done deal.

In a traditional game, if a player objects (e.g., due to a "continuity error" that something couldn't happen -- "Your paladin can't draw their sword because they left it wedged in a door three rooms back."), then they are appealing to the person who made it to retract it or the the GM to agree but they do not have any direct authority to say it doesn't happen.  The GM also has the authority to retroactively change what happened to fix continuity problems, something a player may suggest but the GM has the authority to accept or not accept.  

The GM may also object for a variety of reasons or can choose to defer to the rules.  Either way, the player still isn't the one with the authority to decide what enters or doesn't enter the "shared imaginary space" or "narrative".  That authority still lies in the rules and/or the GM.  And if nobody objects, it may pass into the "narrative" as is.

So when a player says what their character does, it's not an exercise of authority, even if it ultimately passes into the "narrative" as stated because the player isn't the one with the authority to determine whether it does or doesn't pass into the "narrative".  The authority to decide remains with the GM.  Authority means control and the control that traditional games give players is to decide what their characters try to do, not what actually happens.

Quote from: BWA;418691And, to reiterate, I agree that we are not "telling stories"; RPGs are more subtle than that, and - most importantly - they are GAMES.

And what do you mean by that?

Quote from: jhkim;418760In ordinary English, saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" is narration - as is saying "Regdar finds a secret compartment in the bottom of the chest."  However, they are narration about different subjects - and John Morrow's preference to only say things about what his PC thinks and attempts is completely valid.  Also, it is common within both traditional RPG and story game circles to use "narrational authority" to specifically mean narration over subjects other than the PCs.  i.e. There are plenty of Story Games threads where people use "games with narrational authority" to not include traditional RPGs.

In practice, when players declare long chains of actions that assume outcomes along the way (and I've seen people do this), it bothers me as both a GM and a player.  I want to say and hear, "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword," (or, really, "I swing at the orc with my sword," when said as a player) and not, "Regdar slays the orc with his sword, jumps over the chasm, grabs the the magic crystal and shatters it with his axe."  I consider everything after Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" provisional on whether the sword swing hits and how badly it hurts the orc if it does.

Quote from: jhkim;418760It doesn't make sense to me to say that a GM with no players has "authority."  What's that authority over?  I think that it only makes sense to say the GM has authority once they have players - so the players both grant the authority by agreeing to play the game, and accept it when it is used.

In most cases, what's missing from this equation is that when the players agree to play a certain game, they agree to abide by the rules and it's the rules that give the GM a certain amount of authority.  So while the players may have granted authority to the GM in some sense, I think that what they think of themselves as doing is abiding by the rules and that authority being a part of how the game is played.

The phrase 'narrative auithority' is a bullshit term concocted by folks full of crap.  Its a phrase dreamt up by those with some sort of authority issues to start with who somehow can't enjoy normal traditional role playing games.

At the RPG table the GM is the final authority.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;418768The phrase 'narrative auithority' is a bullshit term concocted by folks full of crap.  Its a phrase dreamt up by those with some sort of authority issues to start with who somehow can't enjoy normal traditional role playing games.

At the RPG table the GM is the final authority.


- Ed C.

So you are saying that people who enjoy their roleplaying games with a little more shared authority have mental issues?
I think that's harsh on the folks who never came here and are just happily  playing away at their shared authority games.
I mean, after all even the RPGPundit likes himself some LoA. A game where narrative authority is perhaps not outright shared, but traded within the rules for sure.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;418772So you are saying that people who enjoy their roleplaying games with a little more shared authority have mental issues?
I think that's harsh on the folks who never came here and are just happily  playing away at their shared authority games.
I mean, after all even the RPGPundit likes himself some LoA. A game where narrative authority is perhaps not outright shared, but traded within the rules for sure.

There is no "shared Authority" in real roleplaying games. There is sometimes a "Co-GM". that happens when the GM asks someone to help him or her run a game session - either because of specific NPCs involved or because one of them knows the game system better and might be giving an assist or mentoring a first-time GM.

Oh and what the fuck do you mean by "LoA"?. Is that shorthand for Amber the Roleplaying game? (I see "LoA" and I think of picnic cookouts set in Hawaii or other exotic locales....like Risa. )

If you bother to read past threads where this has been mentioned you'll notice that Pundit has already shredded your angle on that within the last year.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkim;418760Yeah, this seems like this is mostly wordplay in general.  

1) "narration"

In ordinary English, saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" is narration

Except I'm not saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword." I'm saying "I swing at the orc with MY sword." This is not a narrative. This is something I'm experiencing live in my mind's eye. This is me describing what *I* am doing right now as my character as it occurs. The use of the terms "narrative" or "story" as they relate to role playing games suck and are only used to muddy the waters, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Benoist;418629There is no "narrative" in my games. There is the game world.

misuse of language :p every time you describe what happens in your game world, that is narrative, sorry mate but it's the truth, let's please use words to mean what they say, not as some kind of mumbo jumbo terms of art

PS but I use "narrative power" as a short-hand for "narrative power of the kind customarily reserved to the GM"

Quote from: Omnifray;418807misuse of language :p every time you describe what happens in your game world, that is narrative, sorry mate but it's the truth, let's please use words to mean what they say, not as some kind of mumbo jumbo terms of art

See mate. I appreciate you're trying to turn the tables around here, but as far as I'm concerned, you're the one who's misusing words to try to intellectualize the issue and railroad it where you want to go. So I guess we're on an equal footing, here: you dismiss me as ignorant, and I dismiss you as intellectually dishonest. Nothing really new in terms of pro/anti-Forge debates here, really. That's not like we haven't had these types of discussions a thousand times before, right?

Quote from: CRKrueger;418658Nope.  Speech is not Narration.  Every accepted definition of Narration (look at just about every online dictionary you can find) includes creating or narrating a story as part of the narrative process.

From Google Search:-

# narrative: a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events; presented in writing or drama or cinema or as a radio or television program; "his narrative was interesting"; "Disney's stories entertain adults as well as children"
# the act of giving an account describing incidents or a course of events; "his narration was hesitant"
# (rhetoric) the second section of an oration in which the facts are set forth
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# The act of recounting or relating in order the particulars of some action, occurrence, or affair; a narrating; That which is narrated or recounted; an orderly recital of the details and particulars of some transaction or event, or of a series of transactions or events; a story or narrative ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/narration

# narrate - provide commentary for a film, for example
# tell: narrate or give a detailed account of; "Tell what happened"; "The father told a story to his child"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Many of these definitions are not connected to literary works at all but include simply "giving an account describing incidents or a course of events" for instance. Please if you are going to use the Grand Imaginary Dictionary of the English language as your reference source, check it out with Mr. Google first.

Let's stick to plain English people, that way we don't disappear quite so quickly up our own bums :p

Quote from: Omnifray;418809Let's stick to plain English people, that way we don't disappear quite so quickly up our own bums :p

Nope. I'm talking plain English, as is Krueger. Sorry to disappoint you. The problem is that you already have a preconceived idea of us being ignorant idiots and you being intellectually superior. We're not really discussing here. So long as you're not willing to use your brain to actually address the meat of the argument instead of its lexicography, we won't be getting anywhere.

Quote from: RPGPundit;418684Yes, it is Semantics, and like a good little foucaultian post-modernist Swine, you are trying to use Semantics to dominate the conversation.  There are loaded assumptions behind that semantic difference.

Poetic, but I'm not quite getting why "narrative" is treated as such a loaded term. Maybe it's loaded with technical junk meaning from Internet discussions of RPGs, but I don't really care about that stuff. In ordinary plain English it can perfectly well mean simply "describing a series of events". As for the notion of "narrative authority", I don't see that the very use of that term implies limits on the GM's control of the game.

Personally, I hate the term "social contract". It implies all sorts of fanciful notions of morality based on free will and agreement and at bottom it's a bunch of philosophical bollocks. But "narrative authority" - what's wrong with that?

Perhaps only that it's used in Forge theory as a term of art? Fine. I can see that that might be a problem. But I don't think I have a problem with that particular term of art (I have a problem with a lot of the others though). As far as I'm aware it means basically what it says - having narrative authority means having the power to recount events authoritatively (by implication, beyond simply playing your own character). I'm not sure it really comes with any baggage such as the idea of a social contract.

Anyway logically it's true there are limits based on the real world on the GM's deification. Doesn't matter who's GMing, for instance, even if it's the author of the game, if he starts talking about throat-raping cabin boys, the players will (hopefully) walk - even if Pundit is one of the players, he will walk. So the GM doesn't have that authority.

EDITED TO ADD:- and long before a player walks, he usually threatens to walk, IME. So it's not just take it or leave it. He threatens to walk, a compromise is reached or isn't, and the player does or does not walk.

I've had arguments with players before who've wanted unreasonable things for their characters. XP they hadn't earnt, that sort of thing, because they felt the game would be more balanced that way. Generally the GM holds a bit of a trump card but not always. Sometimes he has to back down because players get so upset about these things (even players who are old enough and experienced enough that they ought to know better) that the game will end if the GM doesn't cave. Now, I hate caving, and it takes a lot for it to happen. But sometimes for instance I might have one player who rarely gets to game, so I might be prepared to give ground just to keep the game going for that player's benefit, even if if they weren't there I would stick to my guns and let the game fold.

But if you can show me examples of how Forge doctrine has contaminated the word "narrative authority" in such a way as to bring a lot of Forge baggage with it, I'd say - shouldn't we reclaim those words as ordinary words used in ordinary English? If that turns out to be impossible, fine, we might look for alternative phrases. "The power to control the game-world" for instance. But that's all "narrative power" really means to me at least, and it's a snappier phrase.

Well, I certainly can't pretend to be surprised by the level of hostility here towards this kind of discussion. But, man, it's genuinely disappointing.

Here's another try. Since the words "narrative" and "authority" are such flash points, let's use something else for purposes of this thread.

1. To me, "narrating" is when we speak during role-playing games to say what our characters are doing, or what is happening in the imaginary game world.

2. To me, "authority" is the power to say something, during a role-playing game, and all other players (GM included) accept that thing as valid and true, without having to engage the mechanics.

Anyone who objects to these words, throw up a suggestion for something new, and we can use that, if it makes sense.

Also, someone suggested picking a single game, so let's use D&D 3E, if that is acceptable. I'm sure it's not everyone's favorite game, but it seems like maybe a good common denominator.

Quote from: Benoist;418810Nope. I'm talking plain English, as is Krueger. Sorry to disappoint you. The problem is that you already have a preconceived idea of us being ignorant idiots and you being intellectually superior. We're not really discussing here. So long as you're not willing to use your brain to actually address the meat of the argument instead of its lexicography, we won't be getting anywhere.

No, Benoist, I certainly don't have that preconception. For all I know you're a thousand times cleverer than I am and I have no problem with that. I'm just saying, I used Google as my dictionary, and that's what it threw up as plain ordinary English.

What you do by denying the existence of narrative in your games is (please forgive the observation, I'm just being honest here) indistinguishable from what Forge theory does in its reliance on semantics. You are obfuscating the real issue.

The real issue if I understand it is that you are saying that in your games the focus is on playing the role of the characters, rather than on arriving at a particular kind of story.

And there we are in complete agreement. I wasn't even trying to address that issue. I was just making a side-point, which is:- you've dressed your perfectly valid point up in obfuscatory language by using "narrative" in a very narrow sense when in fact it admits of several senses, some of which are fairly broad. To be fair, some of the definitions I found do tend towards the literary definition which might support the way you used the word, but I think, with respect, overall it harms your cause more than helps it to be artificially restricting the word "narrative" to that narrower meaning.

Quote from: Omnifray;418813Poetic, but I'm not quite getting why "narrative" is treated as such a loaded term. Maybe it's loaded with technical junk meaning from Internet discussions of RPGs, but I don't really care about that stuff. In ordinary plain English it can perfectly well mean simply "describing a series of events". As for the notion of "narrative authority", I don't see that the very use of that term implies limits on the GM's control of the game.

I agree completely. I didn't pick those words to be tricky and carry out my secret mission from Ron Edwards, I picked them because - TO ME - they are clear and straightforward.

But you can't talk about the concept if the language is the source of mistrust and controversy, so I'm all for picking something new.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418663If the GM is exercising authority over your character in a way consistent with what's happening in the setting - he's doing his job.

If the GM is exercising authority over your character in a way inconsistent with what's happening in the setting - he's being a jerk.

The GM is also being a jerk if he sets things up so you are likely to lose substantial control over your character for a long period of time.

For instance, if he includes a magic ring which controls you all the time so that at all times your decisions over what to do are at best cosmetic.

Now if the ring only occasionally controls you that's fine, but if it's all the time, he's nullifying you as a player.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I would genuinely like to talk about these things with other gamers who think very differently than I do about this stuff. That interests me! And I don't mind rough disagreement, or even a total failure to see eye-to eye. That is okay.

I am also happy to share my personal gaming preferences is that is useful to anyone.

But ... if you are one of the people who believe that everything I am writing in this thread is a lie and a trick and I am only intent on Ruining All Fun ... I can't stop you or change your mind, but  there is also no point in engaging with one another. Literally no point. So if you want to keep posting, I can't stop you, but I also can't see the use in responding.

For my part, I'll try to check my assumptions when possible. Which is not always easy to do.

Quote from: Omnifray;418816The real issue if I understand it is that you are saying that in your games the focus is on playing the role of the characters, rather than on arriving at a particular kind of story.

The difference is between considering yourself an authorial voice versus being your character when you play an RPG. The difference is between considering the game world as a construct experienced from a third-person point of view versus experiencing the game world on a "live" basis. It is about living experiences as they occur versus building a "story." You can check out your definitions of a narrative here: they all are precluded on the notion there is an authorial voice, someone to recount events, who is outside of these events. It is the difference between telling a war story around a fire, and actually firing the bullets yourself.

The difference really is about between playing a role playing game and... something else.

Quote from: Omnifray;418809From Google Search:-

# narrative: a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events; presented in writing or drama or cinema or as a radio or television program; "his narrative was interesting"; "Disney's stories entertain adults as well as children"
# the act of giving an account describing incidents or a course of events; "his narration was hesitant"
# (rhetoric) the second section of an oration in which the facts are set forth
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# The act of recounting or relating in order the particulars of some action, occurrence, or affair; a narrating; That which is narrated or recounted; an orderly recital of the details and particulars of some transaction or event, or of a series of transactions or events; a story or narrative ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/narration

# narrate - provide commentary for a film, for example
# tell: narrate or give a detailed account of; "Tell what happened"; "The father told a story to his child"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Many of these definitions are not connected to literary works at all but include simply "giving an account describing incidents or a course of events" for instance. Please if you are going to use the Grand Imaginary Dictionary of the English language as your reference source, check it out with Mr. Google first.

Let's stick to plain English people, that way we don't disappear quite so quickly up our own bums :p

Wow, supercilious and intellectually dishonest, why am I not surprised?  All the definitions you posted (you do actually speak English and could comprehend those sentences you listed, correct?)either deal with actively creating stories or relating accounts after the fact.

So basically, every definition you list reinforces my point that "narrative" is misplaced when talking about immersive roleplaying and then you claim victory.  Forge 101.

Quote from: Koltar;418768At the RPG table the GM is the final authority.

- Ed C.

Woah, Koltar, you just used the word authority!!

So the GM is the final authority on what?

Describing what happens in the game?

OK.

So could that be... (since my dictionary tells me "narrate" can simply mean to recount a series of events)... that the GM is the final authority on recounting what happens in the game, or even... shock horror... on narrating it???

If so, how is that not narrative authority???

Let me put it this way. I hate GNS as much as anyone on this site. I have been castigated severely on the Big Purple for my attacks on GNS (going back a year or two now). I have posted at great length about immersion on another thread here. I am an immersionist through and through.

But I can also see that occasionally, like an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewritters, Forge theory might, despite itself or entirely by chance, come up with a phrase which actually means what it says. I really do think that "narrative authority" is such a phrase.

"Narrationist" I do not buy. "Simulationist" I do not buy. "Gamist" - the jury's out on that one. "Incoherent" I certainly do not buy.

But narrative authority? Doesn't seem worthy of controversy to me.

Quote from: BWA;418817I didn't pick those words to be tricky and carry out my secret mission from Ron Edwards, I picked them because - TO ME - they are clear and straightforward.

Seems that way to myself as well.

-Hans

Basically when it comes to authority, the Forgers are looking at it solely from the side of the player.  

When I'm talking about a game, let's say Benoist's current Praemal game, Benoist is the game setting and interacting with the game setting is the game.  You can walk away, all of his players can walk away, Benoist just gets more players.  His game exists just fine without you, as does his authority over his game.

You can take your ball and your bat and go home, but the GM has enough equipment for whoever else wants to play.

Quote from: Omnifray;418824So could that be... (since my dictionary tells me "narrate" can simply mean to recount a series of events)... that the GM is the final authority on recounting what happens in the game, or even... shock horror... on narrating it???

Why don't you look up in your dictionary recount and account.  You'll find they are referring to describing something after the fact.

You do not narrate something live unless you are creating a story live.  You do not narrate what happens concerning a real event, you narrate what happened.

Quote from: Benoist;418808See mate. I appreciate you're trying to turn the tables around here, but as far as I'm concerned, you're the one who's misusing words to try to intellectualize the issue and railroad it where you want to go. So I guess we're on an equal footing, here: you dismiss me as ignorant, and I dismiss you as intellectually dishonest. Nothing really new in terms of pro/anti-Forge debates here, really. That's not like we haven't had these types of discussions a thousand times before, right?

Woah hang on.

I don't see anything particularly intellectual about the word "narrate". TBH after reading enough people asserting that "narrate" could only mean in relation to a story etc., I had to use the dictionary to double-check that I wasn't just living in some imaginary world of my own where it had a different meaning. But the dictionaries online which I have quoted back me up on this:- it can just mean recounting a series of events. Maybe it holds a different connotation for you. But not for me.

Now, I'm not trying to railroad this issue anywhere. If anything, I'm actually on YOUR side on the general debate. I HATE GNS with a special passion. I like immersion in roleplaying games. I think the focus in roleplaying games has to start with immersion. I'm not really particularly bothered whether the roleplaying game produces a "story" of "literary merit". I would certainly be surprised if it did. And I think any gaming style which dwells on trying to create an interesting story at the expense of letting you adopt your character's point of view is not really my cup of tea, although I'm quite happy with limited powers for players to use fate points to ask for plot events as long as they are filtered through the ref and he keeps his final veto. I don't see any harm in that.

But I don't see any contradiction between absolute immersionist-purism and using the word "narrate" to mean "recount" or "describe events". It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. You're tilting at windmills here.

But the dictionary isn't the final absolute word on what "narrate" connotes. Maybe the way it's used in your neck of the woods, or in online RPG jargon which you are more familiar with than I am, backs you up on this. Fine. I'm unaware of those things. All I can go on is the dictionary.

It's not a question of you being ignorant or me being intellectually dishonest. It's just a question of us having had different exposure to the word "narrate". To me, it can easily mean simply "recount" or "describe events". And the dictionary is on my side. Now that doesn't mean I'm absolutely right, but you could at least accept my view as legitimate, given that it has the dictionary backing it up.

Every time I read someone expounding on Narrative Authority, it seems to be for a couple of consistant reasons. At some point in their gaming past, a GM has touched that person in a naughty place and been an asshole to them in a game. Or they are frustrated GM's who want to run their own games, but so not have the balls to do so, and thus try to hijack another's game. This leads the Narrative Authoritarian to desire to have an unreasonable amount of input into a RPG being run by someone else.

Now note that I said "unreasonable" above, that is because soliciting Player input to form the campaign makes for a better game overall. The idea of Narrative Authority sounds OK in theory, but in practice it leads to a lot of confusion and situations where too much input turns your game into a quagmire in which Player (and GM) immersion cannot be achieved.

What is "reasonable input" from a Player? Character background as long as it fits the campaign setting and campaign premise. I use that a lot in Traveller, letting Players create their own homeworld that I then add to the setting so it becomes a richer tapestry.

What is "unreasonable input" from a Player? Things designed to give that Player an unfair advantage over the other Players in the game, so that the one Player may dominate the game group. Stuff that does not fit the campaign setting or campaign premise. Dictating the action during the game so that it favors the game group, especially when the Players must deal with the results of a bad decision.

When I GM, I am the GM and wear my Viking Hat with pride. I create the space so that the Players may bring on the fun and have an entertaining time. If someone doesn't like how I GM, we can talk it over, but the door is always open for them to leave. Likewise, I show that same respect that I expect as GM when I am a Player in someone else's game.

Quote from: Omnifray;418829But I don't see any contradiction between absolute immersionist-purism and using the word "narrate" to mean "recount" or "describe events". It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. You're tilting at windmills here.

Feel free to ignore the fact that your dictionary also describes recount and account as describing events that have already taken place.  After all, the dictionary is only good when it supports your misdirection, right?

Quote from: Benoist;418822The difference is between considering yourself an authorial voice versus being your character when you play an RPG. The difference is between considering the game world as a construct experienced from a third-person point of view versus experiencing the game world on a "live" basis. It is about living experiences as they occur versus building a "story." You can check out your definitions of a narrative here: they all are precluded on the notion there is an authorial voice, someone to recount events, who is outside of these events. It is the difference between telling a war story around a fire, and actually firing the bullets yourself.

The difference really is about between playing a role playing game and... something else.

OK so let me understand this then. When I say "I attack the orc with my sword", am I not recounting events? Am I not describing events? Am I not doing so with an "authorial voice", even if it is contingent on acceptance by the GM?

When Lovecraft says "That was the document I read, and now I have placed it in the tin box ... " is that not an "authorial voice"? If the GM asks me "where is the document" and I say "I've put it in the tin box", is that not an "authorial voice"?

Do you really think that when you play a character who's firing a gun, you are firing the gun yourself?

Of course you're not. You're imagining firing the gun yourself. You're immersed in your character's point of view of firing the gun yourself. You're giving immediate voice to your character's point of view.

And that goes far beyond simply recounting that your character fires a gun. But at the same time, you are ALSO recounting that your character fires a gun.

And I don't see that admitting that has any kind of negative implications at all for the notion that you are playing a role, immersing yourself in your character, viewing the game-world from his perspective etc. etc.

Why can't it be both at the same time?

Quote from: Omnifray;418835OK so let me understand this then. When I say "I attack the orc with my sword", am I not recounting events? Am I not describing events? Am I not doing so with an "authorial voice", even if it is contingent on acceptance by the GM?

Nope. You are not "recounting events". You are living through them.

That's the difference between actually playing a role-playing game, and writing a story for your buddies to read.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418823Wow, supercilious and intellectually dishonest, why am I not surprised?  All the definitions you posted (you do actually speak English and could comprehend those sentences you listed, correct?)either deal with actively creating stories or relating accounts after the fact.

So basically, every definition you list reinforces my point that "narrative" is misplaced when talking about immersive roleplaying and then you claim victory.  Forge 101.

You have NO BASIS for accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. You seem to have read the definitions as if each series of definitions were part of a linked whole when in fact they are separate. For instance, here is one from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:-

Narrate:- to tell a story, often by reading aloud from a text, or to describe events as they happen.

These are two alternatives. One is to tell a story. The other is to "describe events as they happen". The second of these is exactly what you do when you roleplay.

The same dictionary goes on to give two examples:-

Documentaries are often narrated by well-known actors.
One by one the witnesses narrated the sequence of events which led up to the disaster.

The second example is of witnesses narrating a sequence of events. They are not telling a story in the narrow sense of relating a literary work. As a figure of speech you could say they are telling the story of the events, but they are not actually telling a story in the core sense of the word. And yet the word "narrate" is deemed appropriate.

As for supercillious, which I had to look up and apparently means "behaving as if or showing that you think that you are better than other people, and that their opinions, beliefs or ideas are not important", I don't think that I'm better than you or that your opinions, beliefs or ideas are not important. There might have been a bit of light mickey-taking in the tone of my post, but I don't think you need to take that too seriously. The point I was making was simply:- check your sources.

As for Forge 101, purlease. I am no more Forgite than you are. There's no need to turn this into a witch-hunt of everyone who doesn't immediately jump on every single anti-Forge bandwagon which comes along. You should know by now I am a great hater of GNS. I have no pro Forge agenda whatsoever. And I've set plenty of anti-GNS bandwagons rolling in my time, thank you very much. Have you not seen my very lengthy defences of immersion on other threads here? The games I write and run are my own games which you might hate, but would definitely recognise as essentially trad games. I have also DM'd AD&D 1st ed within the last 5 years. The games I play (run by others) are mostly Pathfinder, MET-LARP Vampire: The Requiem (which, Pundit's views notwithstanding, I consider to be trad) and boffer LARPs. In the last 5 years I have also played D&D 3rd edition, Warhammer 2nd edition and deterministic homebrew vampire and Cthulhu LARPs which are designed to be totally immersionist. A little further in the past I was in a Middle Earth campaign using Deadlands rules. Yes, I tried Montsegur 1244 at a con once, and Dread of Night (oh and Call of Cthulhu FWIW). Does that make me some kind of zealous Forgite? I don't think so.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418828Why don't you look up in your dictionary recount and account.  You'll find they are referring to describing something after the fact.

You do not narrate something live unless you are creating a story live.  You do not narrate what happens concerning a real event, you narrate what happened.

Good point, but "unless you are creating a story live" could be the clincher because it suggests "narrate" can have some present-tense uses. Will have to think about that.

Let's suppose I'm on the phone to you as I watch a policeman chasing a robber. Am I "narrating" what happens if I describe those events to you? I think I am. I'm not sure. I will have to think about it. If I am "narrating" what happens in that context, is it any different if I'm describing what my character is doing in a roleplaying game? I don't think so.

I can certainly "give you an account" of what I intend to do. I don't think I can "recount" what I intend to do. I don't think I can "narrate" what I intend to do but I'm not sure TBH. Can I "narrate" what I am doing? Not sure. Will have to do some digging on that.

So if "narrate" only means past-tense or literary story, what term are we left with - describe?

OK. So the GM has - descriptive authority?

Let me check around on the Internet some more before you proclaim final victory on this.

Quote from: Benoist;418839Nope. You are not "recounting events". You are living through them.

That's the difference between actually playing a role-playing game, and writing a story for your buddies to read.

Surely on any view you can be living through events and describing them at the same time. The contrary view just doesn't make sense at all.

Quote from: Omnifray;418846Surely on any view you can be living through events and describing them at the same time. The contrary view just doesn't make sense at all.

The fact you would consider the contrary view to not make any sense at all is nonsensical to me. The point of a role playing game is to blur the lines between you playing a game and being in the game, actually experiencing its virtual reality through your character.

It's like the question you asked earlier: "Do you really think that when you play a character who's firing a gun, you are firing the gun yourself?" Well yes, Sir, yes I do! Or at least there is a blurring of the lines going that actually defines role playing games to me. If I am not experiencing any blurring of the lines between fiction and reality as it applies to the game world as I play through it, then I am not playing a role playing game at all, but playing some kind of cooperative story composition game instead, which is not the same thing at all, in my mind. This explains why your use of such terms as "narratives" in a role playing game do not make any sense to me, or why I do not like to use the term "story" as it would be applied to the game world depicted by a role playing game.

Quote from: Omnifray;418845Let me check around on the Internet some more before you proclaim final victory on this.

I'm not interested in declaring victory, I would like to have an honest conversation about what we all call roleplaying.  

However, saying you're not a Forger or that you prefer immersive roleplaying within an emulated world doesn't change the fact that insisting on using the terms "narrative" and "authority" which are loaded storygaming terms, does appear that you and BWA are doing exactly what John Morrow referred to, namely, using terminology to try and destroy a distinction you do not believe exists instead of honestly discussing the distinction which we obviously believe exists.

Quote from: Benoist;418848The fact you would consider the contrary view to not make any sense at all is nonsensical to me. The point of a role playing game is to blur the lines between you playing a game and being in the game, actually experiencing its virtual reality through your character.

It's like the question you asked earlier: "Do you really think that when you play a character who's firing a gun, you are firing the gun yourself?" Well yes, Sir, yes I do! Or at least there is a blurring of the lines going that actually defines role playing games to me. If I am not experiencing any blurring of the lines between fiction and reality as it applies to the game world as I play through it, then I am not playing a role playing game at all, but playing some kind of cooperative story composition game instead, which is not the same thing at all, in my mind. This explains why your use of such terms as "narratives" in a role playing game do not make any sense to me, or why I do not like to use the term "story" as it would be applied to the game world depicted by a role playing game.

How about this. Please imagine that I am a complete newbie who has never played a roleplaying game, not even a storygame, never LARPed or LRPed, never even picked up a miniature figurine. And explain to me in terms that I will understand how I play the game, and what I'm doing when I say "I attack the orc with my sword". Obviously, I'm SAYING it. And I'm SAYING it for a reason. Why is that? To convey to the GM what I'm doing? Isn't that the same as DESCRIBING to the GM what I'm doing?

And I've been Googling "narrate events as they happen" - it seems to be a phrase which has quite some usage, including in relation to the behaviour of toddlers in some scientific journal - they narrate events as they happen. That's not telling a story, except in a figurative sense maybe.

Does it make a difference if you call what players do exercising their "descriptive agency" rather than "narrative authority"? I mean, we all know what players do in-game, and that it's asymmetrical with what GMs do in traditional RPGs.

But I think the idea that players "live" the experience of their characters in a straightforward way ignores how RPG experience is enacted through the use of language, and some way of talking about that is probably useful.

Quote from: Benoist;418848This explains why your use of such terms as "narratives" in a role playing game do not make any sense to me, or why I do not like to use the term "story" as it would be applied to the game world depicted by a role playing game.

And by the way, to add a footnote on that previous post, I do not consider this to be a "detail", or just an intellectual theoretical argument. This actually has a direct impact on how games are designed, what the rules are supposed to achieve in a game, and how its published modules are actually structured. Just on the latter, as an example, the way one would look upon an RPG session as a "narrative" or "story" has a direct impact on the way modules are designed, and potentially try to railroad you into "storylines" and pre-scripted events. Just an example, really. So this distinction in my mind does matter a lot as to the manner in which games are actually designed. This is a practical, down-to-earth argument, not a theoretical line-drawing in la-la-land, to me.

Quote from: BWA;4188141. To me, "narrating" is when we speak during role-playing games to say what our characters are doing, or what is happening in the imaginary game world.

This is probably fine.

Quote from: BWA;4188142. To me, "authority" is the power to say something, during a role-playing game, and all other players (GM included) accept that thing as valid and true, without having to engage the mechanics.

This is an abuse of the term "authority".  Acceptance does not imply authority.  Not needing approval and having the ability to say "no" implies authority.  In a traditional role-playing game, the players need the GM's approval (implied or explicit) for what they say to be accepted as having happened in the game and the GM has the ability to say "no".  The GM is the one with "narrative authority".  The players do not have "authority".  Why do you insist on framing this as "authority" to create the impression that players have a level of control that they don't necessarily have?

Quote from: BWA;418814Anyone who objects to these words, throw up a suggestion for something new, and we can use that, if it makes sense.

Players in traditional games simply do not have what you are trying to imply they have by combining the ability to say something and the acceptance of it.  I already gave you an alternative: "suggestion".  The player makes a "narrative suggestion" about what their character does and the GM or rules ultimately determine whether it actually happens as stated and what happens as a consequence.

Quote from: Omnifray;418835OK so let me understand this then. When I say "I attack the orc with my sword", am I not recounting events?

You might want to explore the concept of "speech-act". Or compare when a grandmaster playing blindfold chess says "Queen to King's Rook Four", vs. when he tells how he bought a sandwich the other day.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418850I'm not interested in declaring victory, I would like to have an honest conversation about what we all call roleplaying.  

However, saying you're not a Forger or that you prefer immersive roleplaying within an emulated world doesn't change the fact that insisting on using the terms "narrative" and "authority" which are loaded storygaming terms, does appear that you and BWA are doing exactly what John Morrow referred to, namely, using terminology to try and destroy a distinction you do not believe exists instead of honestly discussing the distinction which we obviously believe exists.

I'm not trying to use terminology to subvert any distinctions. That's just silly.

The distinction you have in mind is I think in essence the distinction between storygames and traditional immersive roleplaying games.

To me, it's fine to put it this way:-

In traditional immersive roleplaying games you adopt the point of view of your character. This is called immersion and it involves suspending your disbelief and seeing the world through your character's eyes.

In storygames as you imagine them to be you concentrate on developing a story. Your focus is not on playing the role of your character so much as on focusing play on particular premises, themes and so on for the betterment of the story.

Now, I would go on and say that, like you, Benoist and Pundit, generally speaking I am not interested in how "good" the "story" is. What I am interested in is immersion and the beautiful pastures it leads to, including things like a sense of mystery, horror etc.

I have played Montsegur 1244 and it is resolutely a storygame with shared narrative control where you switch characters and pass the role of principal narrator back and forth. It was not a terrible experience. On the contrary it was quite good fun. I prefer immersive roleplaying games.

What I found with Montsegur 1244 was that there were elements of immersive play, but they were constantly being interrupted. I was distracted from my immersion by the need to adopt a global perspective and by having to switch characters. The facilitator even told me off for the level of descriptive detail I gave of things that were going on - he wanted "punchier" descriptions. To me, that descriptive detail was a technique for building immersion. He wanted the focus to be on a punchy story.

What do I conclude from this empirical if anecdotal experience?

Storygames are very likely to involve roleplaying. The roleplaying is interrupted. You are distracted from it by storygame elements. But storygames still involve roleplaying. In fact, roleplaying was how I was trying to have my fun. Inadvertently I suppose I was frequently subverting the storygame by focusing on my immersion, not on the story, although I approached the game in good faith and tried to focus on the story.

Roleplaying games also end up creating a story. The focus is on the roleplay, but incidental to the roleplay is a story which grows out of what the characters do and bear witness to.

So, is there a distinction? yes.

Is it an absolute brightline distinction? Well I suppose in a sense it is. You can approach a game with the purpose of roleplaying, or you can approach it with the purpose of creating a story. But whichever you do, elements of the other will naturally emerge even if they are incidental to your primary purpose.

Could you have a game which is borderline storygame/roleplaying game, where people would differ as to which it was, and which is truly a half-way house between the two? I think so. Not saying it would be the best game in the world, mind.

But I do think, or at least I think I think, that roleplaying involves incidental storytelling, and storytelling involves incidental roleplaying. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it seems to me.

I don't think that that detracts from the importance of the distinction. You can focus on storytelling meaning creating a story with consciously pre-envisioned qualities, or you can focus on roleplaying meaning immersion. Whenever you step apart from your character to aim for those pre-envisioned qualities, you are stepping away from immersion. Where your focus lies is, I think, an important and fundamental question.

So, in a sense it's true that storygames are not roleplaying games and vice versa. The focus lies in different areas. The essence of the activity is different. But I think there is a grey area between the two extremes and some room for overlap between them.

My own preference is for immersive roleplaying games. But I don't see it as contradicting that to allow the players some kind of limited narrative input filtered by the GM's right to change or veto those suggestions.

For instance, spending a fate point to ask for a plot event. GM can say yay or nay. As long as it doesn't happen all the time and isn't a constant interruption, I think it may enhance the game, and certainly doesn't turn it into a storygame just because it occasionally involves something other than strictly immersive roleplaying.

Quote from: Omnifray;418835OK so let me understand this then. When I say "I attack the orc with my sword", am I not recounting events?

No, you are declaring intent.  It's like saying, "I'm going to go a restaurant for lunch."  That's probably exactly what I'm doing but something may also prevent me from achieving that intent.

Quote from: Omnifray;418835Am I not describing events? Am I not doing so with an "authorial voice", even if it is contingent on acceptance by the GM?

No.  First, because it's contingent on GM acceptance.  Second, because describing your intent in the first person isn't an "authorial voice" in a meaningful sense.  The GM is the one with the authority.  Authors generally write to a particular ending.

Quote from: Omnifray;418835When Lovecraft says "That was the document I read, and now I have placed it in the tin box ... " is that not an "authorial voice"? If the GM asks me "where is the document" and I say "I've put it in the tin box", is that not an "authorial voice"?

When you tell a friend, "I'm going to a restaurant for lunch," are you speaking with an "authorial voice"?

Quote from: Omnifray;418835Do you really think that when you play a character who's firing a gun, you are firing the gun yourself?

My character does because that's what they perceive as happening.

Quote from: Omnifray;418835Of course you're not. You're imagining firing the gun yourself. You're immersed in your character's point of view of firing the gun yourself. You're giving immediate voice to your character's point of view.

The character's point of view can exist independently of the player's point of view.  The character is unaware of game as a game and only knows about the game setting and events in it.  From that virtual perspective, the character believes they are shooting a gun.  That's why the character experiencing their setting as a real place is so critical to thinking in character.  This should not be an alien concept to anyone who has seen The Matrix.

Quote from: Omnifray;418835Why can't it be both at the same time?

Why does it have to be both at the same time?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;418861You might want to explore the concept of "speech-act". Or compare when a grandmaster playing blindfold chess says "Queen to King's Rook Four", vs. when he tells how he bought a sandwich the other day.

The grandmaster verbally elects to move Queen to King's Rook Four.

By verbally electing a choice, you are simultaneously describing the choice you elect. You might say that the purpose is the election, rather than the description, and in relation to the chess grandmaster you would be right, but in relation to RPGs I would disagree - it has a dual purpose. Once the player verbally elects and thereby describes an action, there's usually no need for the GM to repeat that description, unless he wants to embellish it or give it special confirmation.

Or, on a Benoistic view, you might not be choosing how your character acts, but simply experiencing how he acts. If so, why do you say anything about it at all? Surely, so that the others know what you are doing and can share your experience. In other words, you are describing it for them, so that it can form part of your shared experience.

I think it's natural to use the word "narrate" in that sense, in the sense of "narrating events as they happen" which I've found 4 pages of Google search results to confirm as current usage.

Quote from: John Morrow;418863No, you are declaring intent.  It's like saying, "I'm going to go a restaurant for lunch."  That's probably exactly what I'm doing but something may also prevent me from achieving that intent.

You are declaring your intention of going to the restaurant for lunch (which could be said to be the same as describing your intention) AND SIMULTANEOUSLY you are also describing what you are going to do (namely, go to the restaurant for lunch).

QuoteWhen you tell a friend, "I'm going to a restaurant for lunch," are you speaking with an "authorial voice"?

I was quoting another poster's reference to an "authorial voice" and trying to clarify what he meant.

QuoteThe character's point of view can exist independently of the player's point of view.  The character is unaware of game as a game and only knows about the game setting and events in it.  From that virtual perspective, the character believes they are shooting a gun.  That's why the character experiencing their setting as a real place is so critical to thinking in character.  This should not be an alien concept to anyone who has seen The Matrix.

Can you please stop acting as if I have never played a roleplaying game in my life. Obviously there is a division between character knowledge and player knowledge. Obviously I am aware of that.

BWA, semantics aside, do you prefer games that let you, as a player, dictate things other than the thoughts and attempted actions of your character?

I think that shit ruins the game. To me, it would be like playing chess, and then moving one of the pieces controlled by the other player. Even if it said, in the rules in the box, that player 2 gets to do that occasionally, I'd still think it was cheating.

So, five pages in and no response to my post, huh? Well, I guess that's smart of you, not to get into a fight where you're sure you're outmatched. Fair enough.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;418625I make this argument not to get all nit-picky over semantics (which is only useful for "winning" an internet fight), but to establish a broad and important point. Narrative authority is a BIG part of what makes RPGs what they are.

Before I make any statements about different kinds of games sharing this authority in different ways, does that seem legit to everyone? (Everyone = anyone who cares enough to respond).

BWA,

It seems like you have something to say beyond the definitions -- maybe you have a taxonomy of how games share narrative authority in mind?

Something like that?

Why not just start there? You say you're not interested in arguing semantics -- which (note; this is important) everyone says when they start arguing semantics.

The terms you want to use don't work for people here because no one is interested in using terms so broadly that they could apply to virtually anything happening at the table.

Instead of arguing semantics (what you've said you don't want to do, but are actually doing), why not just make the point you want to make?

If your point is, "In my view, most games give the players some Narrative Authority -- the ability to say what their character does (or thinks, or whatever), and this is really not a binary distinction, but simply one of where any given game or group falls on a spectrum," then just say that.

This has a couple of advantages over what you're doing:

1) You can have whatever opinion you want and there's no point in arguing about it. If I think a turkey sandwich and an apple are, essentially, the same thing because I can both eat them... fine. I mean, that's my idiosyncratic view point, right?
2) If you come out with your point, people can examine it and determine if your framework is, in fact, insightful. By providing little bits of your framework in several posts over a long thread, you actually do whatever your point is a disservice by encouraging people to react to single ideas in isolation

Finally, there's a third advantage: your approach to this is indistinguishable from someone trying to score Internet Points by having people agree with your definition and then using it to declare them wrong about their preference being different from people who's games and preferences they actually dislike.

Given your rhetorical approach your repeated assertions that you're not trying to trick anyone and that you're not interested in arguing semantics do not help. They actually make you /less/ credible.

Just say what you have to say.

Cheers,
-E.

Please move to "Other Games".

Quote from: RPGPundit;418872So, five pages in and no response to my post, huh? Well, I guess that's smart of you, not to get into a fight where you're sure you're outmatched. Fair enough.

RPGPundit

Who's he talking about - BWA? And which particular post has not been replied to?

Wow, I go gaming for a couple of hours and the thread turns into an unreadable mess. Is that par of the course for theory stuff here?

Quote from: Settembrini;418874Please move to "Other Games".

I agree.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;418878Wow, I go gaming for a couple of hours and the thread turns into an unreadable mess. Is that par of the course for theory stuff here?

I think that's par for the course for discussion of "RPG theory", anywhere.

This thread is basically an outgrowth of the "victory thread". I'd already posted this link (http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/) over there but I think it's particularly pertinent here. Basically it's a non-douche Storygamer (they do exist, but few of them make appearances here) talking about the problems with shared narration. You may not agree with everything he has to say but it's at least more interesting than shadowboxing with the latest Forge white knight to stumble into these parts.

Yeah, I'm sorry, this is pointless.

I really was trying to have a conversation about some core ideas about RPGs with the people who post on this forum, but it does not seem possible. I'm not entirely sure why, but I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular.

My apologies to all.

Quote from: BWA;418909My apologies to all.

Nah it's cool, no need to apologize from my POV. But you shouldn't expect the conversation to go the way you want it to go, especially around here, with so many people who have every right to behave like assholes if they want to. So take it as it comes. Sometimes you'll find something interesting in our shared ramblings, and sometimes it'll just fall on deaf ears. That's the nature of the beast.

Quote from: BWA;418909Yeah, I'm sorry, this is pointless.

I really was trying to have a conversation about some core ideas about RPGs with the people who post on this forum, but it does not seem possible. I'm not entirely sure why, but I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular.

My apologies to all.

Well if you were really "trying to have a conversation about some core ideas about RPGs" then you shoudn't have insisted we let specific Forge terms slide by under your very broad custom definitions.  The fact that you gave up when you couldn't ram through those terms speaks volumes as to your real intent.

Quote from: BWA;418909really was trying to have a conversation about some core ideas about RPGs with the people who post on this forum, but it does not seem possible. I'm not entirely sure why, but I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular.

While my tone may not have been particularly friendly, I seriously tried to explain my objections to your assertions throughout.  How about addressing those points?

In particular, I explained why calling what the players do when they describe what their characters do "narrative authority" is inaccurate because they don't actually have "authority".  Do you have a rebuttal?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;418907This thread is basically an outgrowth of the "victory thread". I'd already posted this link (http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/) over there but I think it's particularly pertinent here. Basically it's a non-douche Storygamer (they do exist, but few of them make appearances here) talking about the problems with shared narration. You may not agree with everything he has to say but it's at least more interesting than shadowboxing with the latest Forge white knight to stumble into these parts.

It's a little long and convoluted, but he starts out basically saying what I've been saying here:

""Narration" here basically means adding to the fiction developed during the game with little overview, or none at all. An author basically "narrates" when he writes or tells things about a story: first this thing happens, then this other thing, and so on. Much of the communication in roleplaying is not "narration" in this sense of the term: for example, when you declare the actions of your character, this is not narration in most traditional games, as those declarations will still have to be processed through the game's system or GM's consideration before they will be properly considered part of the fiction. "Narration" is when there is no such constraint; you open your mouth, and what you say goes straight into the fiction because it's been pre-vetted in some manner – you've been given the right to speak as to the fiction at this moment."

Quote from: Koltar;418786There is no "shared Authority" in real roleplaying games. There is sometimes a "Co-GM". that happens when the GM asks someone to help him or her run a game session - either because of specific NPCs involved or because one of them knows the game system better and might be giving an assist or mentoring a first-time GM.

- Ed C.

Yes.

Quote from: Benoist;418798Except I'm not saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword." I'm saying "I swing at the orc with MY sword." This is not a narrative. This is something I'm experiencing live in my mind's eye. This is me describing what *I* am doing right now as my character as it occurs. The use of the terms "narrative" or "story" as they relate to role playing games suck and are only used to muddy the waters, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes

Quote from: BWA;418814Well, I certainly can't pretend to be surprised by the level of hostility here towards this kind of discussion. But, man, it's genuinely disappointing.

Here's another try. Since the words "narrative" and "authority" are such flash points, let's use something else for purposes of this thread.

1. To me, "narrating" is when we speak during role-playing games to say what our characters are doing, or what is happening in the imaginary game world.

Not exactly. When a player states his/her course of action in the game that is called playing the game. If a DM is describing something in the third person such as:

" You see a what appears to be a farmer standing in the field to your right about a hundred yards away. He appears to be looking at something in the distance."

That is narration. If the PC's approach the farmer and speak with him, the DM speaking in the role of the farmer is no longer narrating.

Quote from: BWA;4188142. To me, "authority" is the power to say something, during a role-playing game, and all other players (GM included) accept that thing as valid and true, without having to engage the mechanics.

Rubbish.  

A role playing game (as opposed to a story telling game) is based on the participants selecting and playing a role. The game world is experienced from within that role.

So if I select Badass the fighting man as my role in the game then I expect to experience gameplay (and the game world) as that fighting man. Looking over the list of abilities for my chosen class I don't seem to see "create NPC/item", "influence narrative" or anything of the sort. What exactly in my role as a fighting man would give me the ability to say "just as we thought all hope was lost, Gimpy the torchbearer shows up to rescue us." and have it be valid and true?

Quote from: Benoist;418912Nah it's cool, no need to apologize from my POV. But you shouldn't expect the conversation to go the way you want it to go, especially around here, with so many people who have every right to behave like assholes if they want to. So take it as it comes. Sometimes you'll find something interesting in our shared ramblings, and sometimes it'll just fall on deaf ears. That's the nature of the beast.

I guess all he could do was play his character. He didn't have enough narrative control over the forum.

Well put, cranewings.

Meanwhile, the real scenario is just about the opposite of what he tried to plant: the players aren't the ones who implicitly grant the GM his authority. Its the GM who HAS all the authority, and grants it to the players. He grants them the opportunity to play in his world, and he grants them the authority to decide their character's actions (but not the outcome of those actions), and he can take away either of those grants whenever he feels the need to.

The player, on the other hand, only has the inherent "right" to leave the game, that's it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;418909Yeah, I'm sorry, this is pointless.

I really was trying to have a conversation about some core ideas about RPGs with the people who post on this forum, but it does not seem possible. I'm not entirely sure why, but I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular.

My apologies to all.

I do not accept your apology.

Until you atone for your shitty arguement and piss-poor reasoning skills by offering up an appropriate sacrifice to the Viking Hat, your apology will be considered mere dissembling in an attempt to save face on this forum.

YOU MUST TRY HARDER NEXT TIME.

Quote from: RPGPundit;418954Well put, cranewings.

Meanwhile, the real scenario is just about the opposite of what he tried to plant: the players aren't the ones who implicitly grant the GM his authority. Its the GM who HAS all the authority, and grants it to the players. He grants them the opportunity to play in his world, and he grants them the authority to decide their character's actions (but not the outcome of those actions), and he can take away either of those grants whenever he feels the need to.

The player, on the other hand, only has the inherent "right" to leave the game, that's it.

RPGPundit

I think that's a question of subjective perspective.

For my own part I'm damn happy when players turn up to play the games I ref which I love. I also expect them to show appreciation for the effort I'm putting in to make the game come alive for them.

When I turn up to my local regular MET-LARP, which costs virtually nothing to play, I'm damn grateful to the reffing team for the momentous effort they put into running it, reacting to tens of players' written downtimes, organising stuff to happen during the game, organising the venue etc. And they expect to be appreciated and rightly so.

But at the same time if I turn up to some shitty hack-n-slash fest just to appease the GM and other players and make sure they have someone to play with, it's not so utterly clear to me that it's the GM who's doing me a favour. I'll throw myself into his game with all possible gusto, I'll approach it in total good faith, but who's really doing who the favour?

Surely even you Pundit would have to accept that a group of people can get together, before they start playing any particular game, and collectively agree on which game they want to play. The person who's going to be GMing might well ask them what sorts of directions they would like that game to go on. Would they like it to involve samurai and ninja? What about horror or a zombie-fest? How about mystery, suspense, intrigue and investigation? Or are they more up for some kind of dungeon crawl? Even if the intending GM doesn't ask, the intending players might pipe up and suggest. Does that make it not an RPG when they sit down and play? Obviously not.

And what if that happens between sessions, rather than before the game starts? Is that any different? Or what if it even happens during the game itself? Is that really any different? Does it magically stop being an RPG? I don't think so.

But obviously WITHIN the terms of the RPG itself it is the GM who has final authority. When external pressures bend or break that principle, you could say that that's not part of the game itself. I think I would tend to agree. But that doesn't make it socially unacceptable. In some situations it might be damn good sense.

So I don't think it's right to suggest that the players' only right is to leave the game. In fact, the game doesn't even give the right to leave the game. As far as the game is concerned, when a player leaves, what happens to his character (dead or alive) is a matter for the GM, the rules and to some extent the remaining players.

The player's right to leave the game is a question of social expectations (and I suppose legal or moral rights) in the real world. You Mr. Pundit are not the definitive arbiter of those social expectations. And really I think it's perfectly plain that in SOME situations, even if they're comparatively rare, even in the traddest RPG you can mention played by the traddest group you've ever met, the players will influence how the GM does his job. Even if it's only by sighing with boredom and saying "oh god not another orc". Which will surely predispose the GM to include fewer orcs in future. Or by reacting with glee and fervent interest when the GM stokes up the levels of mystery, suspense or horror - which may well predispose the GM to do more of that as the game goes on.

The GM is not, socially, literally a god. When we play in his game we implicitly accept that within the game he runs the show. But realistically the game is going to respond to wider social circumstances. It's going to respond to what the players want or seem to want. Whether the GM does so willingly or unwillingly, consciously or subconsciously, somewhere in there there will be an element of give and take.

It's not simply that the GM is in charge of the social experience of playing the RPG and gives the players the right to attend and play on his terms, or quit. Everyone involved is part of a group of friends. The GM wants the players to play, and the players want entertainment that they enjoy. The GM understands that, so he responds to what the players want. He may prioritise his own preferences, fine, but somewhere in there is an acknowledgment of what the players want. Obviously the GM has the biggest practical say, almost an exclusive say in what goes on. But to try to make out that the players, socially speaking, have no kind of metagame power at all, is just unrealistic, IMHO YMMV.

Quote from: Omnifray;418862I'm not trying to use terminology to subvert any distinctions. That's just silly.

The distinction you have in mind is I think in essence the distinction between storygames and traditional immersive roleplaying games.

To me, it's fine to put it this way:-

In traditional immersive roleplaying games you adopt the point of view of your character. This is called immersion and it involves suspending your disbelief and seeing the world through your character's eyes.



For instance, spending a fate point to ask for a plot event. GM can say yay or nay. As long as it doesn't happen all the time and isn't a constant interruption, I think it may enhance the game, and certainly doesn't turn it into a storygame just because it occasionally involves something other than strictly immersive roleplaying.

I am in Omnifray's camp on this one.
Except I would never say Story games aren't RPGs. I mean what right tdo I have to define what is and isn't an RPG. If a bunch of people want to sit round doing some shared naration storytelling and call it a role playing game then good for them. Its certainly a lot closer to a role playing game than it is to cribbage so more power to them.

I think the whole GM authority thing is a bit of a pickle. Yes I agree that the players have no option but to walk out of the game if they don't like the GM's use of authority but i think there is an inherrent 'contract' to use some poncey term that the players and the GM enter into that is bound by the rules.
In theory a GM could use 'Rule 0' to tell a player that his actions failed. This happens with rail-roady GMs. You also get GMs who have foavourites and their actions always work no matter the dice roll or abilites called upon. Now in those games I walk away, but the reason why I walk away is that the GM has broken that 'contract'. The one that says the GM will run the game in line with the rules as written but has the authority to interpret those rules in a consistent and equitable manner.

To me this whole discussion is kind of daft. I am totally immersive when I play (but as i have said before I get pretty immersive when playing Escape from Colditz, all my little men have differnt names, accents and preferred methods of escape). I expect the world to feel totally geunine and I place internal consistency above all things. That being said if a game has Hero points or fate points or whatever I am happy to use them to find a compass in the draw or to have the villain's musket misfire. I will use skills to find NPCs ai can use. All this stuff boarders on naritivism (as I understand it as defined by the anti-forge camp). I would always use such points in an immersive way (I wouldn't have seemingly dead NPCs turning up as I don;t see that as being immersion) and I'll never step out of character. So what does that make me (same as everyone else i reckon)

As a GM I do look for the story I do construct games with a strong plot. I hate games were a bunch of disposable adventurers randomly choose to explore and old castle just because its there and when one of them dies they happy accept the first Dwarf that coems along as a long lost comrade. I hate that adventurers are the unique special individuals in the world but that their seems to be an inexhaustible supply of them in the local tavern. I want a plot I want a party of young warriors who return home after a hunt and find their viallage in ruins to set off in pursuit of the dark foes that caused the carnage. If that provides the PCs with a degree of narritive immunity then ..meh... Much prefered to faceless PCs.

So I guess I am saying its all allowed you can pick and choose whatever you want to suit your game. Call it an RPG if you want it to be an RPG. It the players and the GM want to share authority who casres so long as they enjoy it. IF they want a vanilla game of OD&D with a dozen hirelings who can be promoted to PCs when the others get killed then so. So long as the people playing all agree that that is what they want to play then more power to them.
If the Forge and the Theory are indeed dead, then why are so many people frightened their hobby might be poluted by heretical ideas? And isn't the anti-narrativist stance being adopted here just as dogmatic and invasive as the Theory stuff was in the first place.

Quote from: jibbajibba;418983Except I would never say Story games aren't RPGs. ... And isn't the anti-narrativist stance being adopted here just as dogmatic and invasive as the Theory stuff was in the first place.

I think my current view (and it is evolving) is that storygames and immersive RPGs are different kinds of game, but they have things in common, they are on a spectrum with storygames at one end and immersive RPGs at the other, a spectrum from focus on story to focus on immersion, and somewhere in the middle you could have a halfway house which could legitimately be said to be storygame by some people, but immersive RPG by others.

I think storygames probably ARE RPGs as most roleplayers (including immersive ones) would use that term, but they are not IMMERSIVE RPGs. They are story-centred RPGs, instead of immersion-centred RPGs. You can play a story-centred RPG with an immersion-based outlook and sure, the metagame will fuck up your immersion to a degree, so it comes off as a second-rate immersive experience, but it's still an immersive experience after a fashion. You can still be playing a role. It's still recognisably an RPG. Just, from an immersive point of view, not a very good one...

And yes, the anti-narrativist witchhunt being pursued by some on here is just as doctrinaire and dogmatic as anything written by a pro-narrativist ever, although I think it lacks the distinctive quality of propaganda and intellectual dishonesty which a small minority of pro-narrativist writings exhibit. But it has its fair share of semantic confusion at times.

Quote from: BWA;418909Yeah, I'm sorry, this is pointless.

I really was trying to have a conversation about some core ideas about RPGs with the people who post on this forum, but it does not seem possible. I'm not entirely sure why, but I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular.

My apologies to all.

I don't think an apology is necessary, but I'm saddened to see that disagreement is considered dysfunctional.

One of the absolutely worst things about The Forge was the moderation style designed to prevent opposing views from being heard. I think it hurt the theory badly and it trained the theory people to see disagreement as dysfunctional.

My recommendation would be to adjust your approach to discussion: instead of worrying so much about terminology, just say what you have to say. Expect disagreement, naturally (it's unlikely that everyone will agree on everything), but if you present your thinking as your perspective and opinion you won't get so much push back.

You also won't get so much attention unless what you're saying is actually considered valuable by the audience you're talking to... but if people are listening it's because you've got something insightful to say and not because you're being irritating.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Omnifray;418988I think my current view (and it is evolving) is that storygames and immersive RPGs are different kinds of game, but they have things in common, they are on a spectrum with storygames at one end and immersive RPGs at the other, a spectrum from focus on story to focus on immersion, and somewhere in the middle you could have a halfway house which could legitimately be said to be storygame by some people, but immersive RPG by others.

I think storygames probably ARE RPGs as most roleplayers (including immersive ones) would use that term, but they are not IMMERSIVE RPGs. They are story-centred RPGs, instead of immersion-centred RPGs. You can play a story-centred RPG with an immersion-based outlook and sure, the metagame will fuck up your immersion to a degree, so it comes off as a second-rate immersive experience, but it's still an immersive experience after a fashion. You can still be playing a role. It's still recognisably an RPG. Just, from an immersive point of view, not a very good one...

And yes, the anti-narrativist witchhunt being pursued by some on here is just as doctrinaire and dogmatic as anything written by a pro-narrativist ever, although I think it lacks the distinctive quality of propaganda and intellectual dishonesty which a small minority of pro-narrativist writings exhibit. But it has its fair share of semantic confusion at times.

Yeah I can agree with that as well except that the spectrum goes from Chess through to story games and D&D is somewhere in teh middle :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;418916Well if you were really "trying to have a conversation about some core ideas about RPGs" then you shoudn't have insisted we let specific Forge terms slide by under your very broad custom definitions.  The fact that you gave up when you couldn't ram through those terms speaks volumes as to your real intent.

Sweet Baby Jesus, are you high? I wasn't "ramming" terms down anyone's throat. I asked - twice - for suggestions for terms we might use instead. No one had any, except Bill White, who suggested "descriptive agency". (Which works just as well, for me).

By all means, please suggest some alternatives.

Quote from: John Morrow;418920In particular, I explained why calling what the players do when they describe what their characters do "narrative authority" is inaccurate because they don't actually have "authority".  Do you have a rebuttal?

Okay, John, thanks. I'll try it again.

So, I'll keep using the term "narrative authority", until someone comes up with something different. If you object to this term, please suggest something else and we can use that instead. Seriously. Constructive feedback is welcome.

John, it sounds like, when you play, nothing a player says has legitimacy unless it is explicitly confirmed by the GM. Is that right?

I want to understand this, because it's pretty different from how I play D&D.

So if you're running a D&D game, and you describe a tavern to us, and then sit back expectantly, and I say "Okay, I head into the tavern with a jaunty look on my face.", you're saying that, in the fictional game world, that doesn't happen until you, as the GM, approve?

If so, how does that work, in the real world, at the game table? Do you nod at the person who spoke? Do you say "confirmed"? I assume it's not anything as formal as that, but I want to figure it out so we can agree on common ground before diverging.

Quote from: BWA;418995Sweet Baby Jesus, are you high? I wasn't "ramming" terms down anyone's throat. I asked - twice - for suggestions for terms we might use instead. No one had any, except Bill White, who suggested "descriptive agency". (Which works just as well, for me).

By all means, please suggest some alternatives.



Okay, John, thanks. I'll try it again.

So, I'll keep using the term "narrative authority", until someone comes up with something different. If you object to this term, please suggest something else and we can use that instead. Seriously. Constructive feedback is welcome.

John, it sounds like, when you play, nothing a player says has legitimacy unless it is explicitly confirmed by the GM. Is that right?

I want to understand this, because it's pretty different from how I play D&D.

So if you're running a D&D game, and you describe a tavern to us, and then sit back expectantly, and I say "Okay, I head into the tavern with a jaunty look on my face.", you're saying that, in the fictional game world, that doesn't happen until you, as the GM, approve?

If so, how does that work, in the real world, at the game table? Do you nod at the person who spoke? Do you say "confirmed"? I assume it's not anything as formal as that, but I want to figure it out so we can agree on common ground before diverging.

I think the argument would be that until the GM says ' Once in the bar you see...' all you have declared is your intention to walk into the bar. The DM could stop you in any number of ways from shooting you in the back with an arrow to locking the door to the bar.  I think that is fully justified in any RPG even a story one.  
The issue isn't at this point of the spectrum. the issue is at the point where you enter the bar and spend a plot point to have your cousin dave sitting there and becuase you have spent the point the DM can't alter that event. Now I think that is still an RPG, I mean you are still playing someone that walks into a bar, but its not D&D any more.

Quote from: Omnifray;418818The GM is also being a jerk if he sets things up so you are likely to lose substantial control over your character for a long period of time.

For instance, if he includes a magic ring which controls you all the time so that at all times your decisions over what to do are at best cosmetic.

Now if the ring only occasionally controls you that's fine, but if it's all the time, he's nullifying you as a player.

As a caveat though, there are times when even this is not verboten, especially if the GM gets the player onboard. I played in a game where the character was possessed by an evil spirit, but the GM had gone to the player outside that game and rather than actually taking control of the character himself, had filled the player in on what had happened and the player agreed to play the role of the spirit who used the character's knowledge to try to subvert and corrupt the group. It was pretty cool actually. Other than the occasional exception like this one though, I agree with you :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;418999The issue isn't at this point of the spectrum. the issue is at the point where you enter the bar and spend a plot point to have your cousin dave sitting there and becuase you have spent the point the DM can't alter that event. Now I think that is still an RPG, I mean you are still playing someone that walks into a bar, but its not D&D any more.

I would say at that point the players would be playing the roles of co-storytellers rather than someone who walks into a bar.

Unless of course the character that enters the bar actually has the power within the gameworld to summon or create the entity known as cousin Dave.

Quote from: BWA;418995John, it sounds like, when you play, nothing a player says has legitimacy unless it is explicitly confirmed by the GM. Is that right?

I want to understand this, because it's pretty different from how I play D&D.

So if you're running a D&D game, and you describe a tavern to us, and then sit back expectantly, and I say "Okay, I head into the tavern with a jaunty look on my face.", you're saying that, in the fictional game world, that doesn't happen until you, as the GM, approve?

If so, how does that work, in the real world, at the game table? Do you nod at the person who spoke? Do you say "confirmed"? I assume it's not anything as formal as that, but I want to figure it out so we can agree on common ground before diverging.

The point is that what the player is communicating is intent. So the player's statement is legitimate, in that the GM won't normally gainsay their intent, but it doesn't guarantee the action will happen as described. To pick up on your example, this would be a perfectly legitimate exchange:

Player: "Okay, I head into the tavern with a jaunty look on my face."
GM: "You set off towards the tavern, but before you get halfway there, ninjas attack"

Of course, it would be equally legitimate for the GM to accept the action and then kick off with "OK, once you're inside you see..."

I only skimmed most of this thread, but "narrative authority" doesn't strike me personally as an inherently bad term, provided you accept that within a "trad" game, the players have zero narrative authority and the GM's narrative authority is heavily limited.

Quote from: jibbajibba;418990Yeah I can agree with that as well except that the spectrum goes from Chess through to story games and D&D is somewhere in teh middle :)

Actually chess is closer to the storygame end of the immersion v narrative continuum. The reason is that in immersive RPGs the focus is on how you experience the game, whereas in storygames the focus is on the narrative content of the game, which plainly means "the events which happen in the game". In other words, immersive RPGs are about HOW the game affects YOU the player, and storygames are about WHAT HAPPENS in the game.

Chess is about who wins and who loses. Therefore it's a storygame.

:-D

D&D can't seem to make up its mind these days whether its an immersive RPG or a storygame. Half-way house if you ask me.

:-D

Not that I'm trolling with these comments or anything.

Quote from: Sigmund;419007As a caveat though, there are times when even this is not verboten, especially if the GM gets the player onboard. I played in a game where the character was possessed by an evil spirit, but the GM had gone to the player outside that game and rather than actually taking control of the character himself, had filled the player in on what had happened and the player agreed to play the role of the spirit who used the character's knowledge to try to subvert and corrupt the group. It was pretty cool actually. Other than the occasional exception like this one though, I agree with you :)

I agree with your exception, except that it's not really an exception. Because in your scenario the GM let the player play a different character (namely the spirit) to replace his previous character (for a while at least). So what the GM was really doing was letting the player secretly switch characters, not controlling EXACLTLY EVERY MOVE that the player made. The player still had a very active and decisive role playing the evil spirit. He still had choices to make. That's the point.

Quote from: Grymbok;419045I only skimmed most of this thread, but "narrative authority" doesn't strike me personally as an inherently bad term, provided you accept that within a "trad" game, the players have zero narrative authority and the GM's narrative authority is heavily limited.

Surely within a trad game the players have zero narrative authority (beyond their characters' free-willed, rational intentions) and the GM has TOTAL narrative authority?

Quote from: Omnifray;419062Surely within a trad game the players have zero narrative authority (beyond their characters' free-willed, rational intentions) and the GM has TOTAL narrative authority?

Not as I understand the term. For the GM to have total narrative authority he'd have to be able to dictate to the other players what their PCs did ("and then Bob's Paladin lays down his sword and lets the orcs take him prisoner") and also transparently ignore the rules in service of his "narrative". Trad RPGs - both in their rules and the social contract at the table - do not give the GM full power in either case.

Hell, in many trad games, it would be considered a dick move by the GM to run the bad guys with anything other than the published stats for that kind of creature in the monster book.

Let's keep the focus on D&D for examples, instead of various imaginary "story games", since D&D is probably the thing we all know best.

Quote from: jibbajibba;418999I think the argument would be that until the GM says ' Once in the bar you see...' all you have declared is your intention to walk into the bar. The DM could stop you in any number of ways from shooting you in the back with an arrow to locking the door to the bar.  I think that is fully justified in any RPG even a story one.  

Quote from: Grymbok;419045To pick up on your example, this would be a perfectly legitimate exchange:

Player: "Okay, I head into the tavern with a jaunty look on my face."
GM: "You set off towards the tavern, but before you get halfway there, ninjas attack"

That is how I understand it as well. The GM in D&D can always interrupt or negate a player's statement of intent with a new piece of narration, since we agree that the GM has information about the game world that the player does not.

However ... In my experience, that's the exception, not the rule. That is to say, while the GM can always pre-empt a player's statement, the majority of the time, when I, as a player, say out loud what my character is doing, the other players (GM included) accept that at face value.

Does that sound correct to everyone? Because John's post indicated that this is not how he understands it. Unless I misunderstood him, which may very well be the case.

Quote from: Grymbok;419045I only skimmed most of this thread, but "narrative authority" doesn't strike me personally as an inherently bad term, provided you accept that within a "trad" game, the players have zero narrative authority and the GM's narrative authority is heavily limited.

I think that argument is the controversial one, and also the more interesting one.

I don't accept that players have "zero narrative authority" in a trad game, but that assertion will cause two pages of hostile, rambling attacks, so I'd rather hold off until we can establish some common ground.

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Not as I understand the term. For the GM to have total narrative authority he'd have to be able to dictate to the other players what their PCs did ("and then Bob's Paladin lays down his sword and lets the orcs take him prisoner") and also transparently ignore the rules in service of his "narrative". Trad RPGs - both in their rules and the social contract at the table - do not give the GM full power in either case.

Right! The idea of who has the "authority" [please suggest a different word to use here if this one makes you unhappy] to say what is happening is kind of fluid, from game to game and table to table.

I'm hoping we can establish some common ground, and then talk about where different games, and different gaming groups, differ.

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Not as I understand the term. For the GM to have total narrative authority he'd have to be able to dictate to the other players what their PCs did ("and then Bob's Paladin lays down his sword and lets the orcs take him prisoner") and also transparently ignore the rules in service of his "narrative". Trad RPGs - both in their rules and the social contract at the table - do not give the GM full power in either case.

Absolutely incorrect.  The GM trumps any and all rules.  It is his game, born from his mind.  Even if he's using bog-standard Forgotten Realms, it is his Forgotten Realms.  He could very easily tell you what your character is doing, taking over your character's actions, emotions, even thoughts.  If he's a good GM, he has a damn good reason for doing it, but if he's an asshole, he can do it just for shits and giggles.  You can walk away and play the Forgotten Realms under another GM, but it is a different game.  As a player you had absolutely no absolute authority over anything.  Absolute authority rests only with the GM.  

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Hell, in many trad games, it would be considered a dick move by the GM to run the bad guys with anything other than the published stats for that kind of creature in the monster book.

That's only the current trend in rpgs in which balance and character specialsnowflakism is more important then immersion (ie. 21st century D&D).  Someone cries "But that orc had too many hitpoints" because he wasn't listening when you told him the orc looked larger then the orcs he's seen before, then he can go fuck himself.

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Hell, in many trad games, it would be considered a dick move by the GM to run the bad guys with anything other than the published stats for that kind of creature in the monster book.

LOL :D

Quote from: BWA;419111Right! The idea of who has the "authority" [please suggest a different word to use here if this one makes you unhappy] to say what is happening is kind of fluid, from game to game and table to table.

It's only fluid in games that don't stress character immersion through world emulation.  Lots of people have a term for those games, they call them non-RPGs.  I don't go quite that far, but you're basically casting a very wide net and putting it under a very big umbrella of "RPG".

Quote from: Benoist;419119LOL :D

I know, right?

Quote from: CRKrueger;419121I know, right?

Well, yeah! I'm still laughing. Seriously. Out loud. :D

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Not as I understand the term. For the GM to have total narrative authority he'd have to be able to dictate to the other players what their PCs did ("and then Bob's Paladin lays down his sword and lets the orcs take him prisoner") and also transparently ignore the rules in service of his "narrative". Trad RPGs - both in their rules and the social contract at the table - do not give the GM full power in either case.

Hell, in many trad games, it would be considered a dick move by the GM to run the bad guys with anything other than the published stats for that kind of creature in the monster book.

Social contracts are a lie.

Having to stick to the published stats is a concept fit only for storygames.

It's a dick move for the GM to decide what Bob's Paladin does - usually. But exceptionally it can be OK. And it's certainly within the technical power the game gives, even if social expectations, general altruism and enlightened self interest prevent him from doing it very often.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419117Absolutely incorrect.  The GM trumps any and all rules.  It is his game, born from his mind.  Even if he's using bog-standard Forgotten Realms, it is his Forgotten Realms.  He could very easily tell you what your character is doing, taking over your character's actions, emotions, even thoughts.  If he's a good GM, he has a damn good reason for doing it, but if he's an asshole, he can do it just for shits and giggles.  You can walk away and play the Forgotten Realms under another GM, but it is a different game.  As a player you had absolutely no absolute authority over anything.  Absolute authority rests only with the GM.  

That's only the current trend in rpgs in which balance and character specialsnowflakism is more important then immersion (ie. 21st century D&D).  Someone cries "But that orc had too many hitpoints" because he wasn't listening when you told him the orc looked larger then the orcs he's seen before, then he can go fuck himself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419120[Narrative authority or whatever is] only fluid in games that don't stress character immersion through world emulation.  Lots of people have a term for those games, they call them non-RPGs.  I don't go quite that far, but you're basically casting a very wide net and putting it under a very big umbrella of "RPG".

These two points seem to work against each other. I mean, if immersive emulation is what's important, then I'd expect pretty firm opposition to GM interference in the player playing the character, since if the player is doing anything at all, it's got to be inhabiting the head of the character. On the other hand, if the important principle is GM control of the game-world including the characters, then the possibility of immersion being disrupted when the GM exercises that control on characters seems strong.

I guess there are a couple of ways to resolve the difficulty: maybe the GM is subtle, or maybe he's not a dick, and so forth. Maybe I'm not quite clear on what immersion via emulation is, exactly. One thing that occurred to me is to wonder if people have encountered problems at the table like GM dickishness and solved them using any method other than walking away from the game.

Quote from: Omnifray;419123Social contracts are a lie.

Speaking as someone with zero interest in "game theory" and a background in psychology, social contracts do indeed exist and play a vital role in modern society. Perhaps the term has been perverted or misused by online game theorists, but the original concept is a valid and integral part of socio-anthropological studies.

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Hell, in many trad games, it would be considered a dick move by the GM to run the bad guys with anything other than the published stats for that kind of creature in the monster book.

Rules-lawyering at its most pervasive and destructive, that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;419143Speaking as someone with zero interest in "game theory" and a background in psychology, social contracts do indeed exist and play a vital role in modern society. Perhaps the term has been perverted or misused by online game theorists, but the original concept is a valid and integral part of socio-anthropological studies.

Except that they are not, in any meaningful sense, contracts.

The term "social contract", which (IIRC) traces its history back to Locke if not earlier, though of venerable antiquity and widely used by academics, is a perversion of language.

Why do I say this? Because "contracts" in any meaningful sense are built on at least apparent consent arising out of the actions of the contracting parties.

People are deemed to be part of a social contract by philosophers such as (IIRC) Locke despite the fact that they have no practical choice in the matter at all. For instance, government is said to be justified by the existence of a social contract with the governed. What offensive nonsense! Although now as an adult I could emigrate (scarcely a realistic choice), as a teenager I had no practical choice at all over who was in government. Should a teenager be deemed to be morally obliged to accept the government on the basis of some deemed or fictional consent, some hypothetical contract? Bullshit! Sure, I can think of many reasons why it is prudent for and therefore to some extent morally incumbent upon the teenager to accept government, but to base it on the idea that he has somehow given his consent to being governed is just propaganda. And the position of an adult, whose opportunities for emigration and whose choice of countries to emigrate to are limited (and scant difference it would make if he did anyway), is scarcely any different.

People are the subject of social expectations despite the fact that they do nothing to promote that fact or do not understand how they promote those social expectations and thereby have no real say in the matter at all. And so-called "social contracts" are legitimately understood differently by the various participants in them. They are founded more on assumption than on anything expressly stated or even clearly to be inferred. They are imputed not according to some objective standard which can be measured or defined but according to the perceptions of each individual affected by them. They are incohesive and vague.

Why complicate and distort reality by terming these phenomena "social contracts"? Why not call them simply what they are:- social expectations which the members of a social group generally treat as the common social expectations of the members of that group, or in other words collective social expectations. That's what they are. Collective social expectations, with the caveat that they are not identical from person to person. They are not contracts at all.

Not doubting your scholarly learning on the issue, just saying that the scholarship is a perversion of language and should be bonfired going back around 400 years and rewritten in plain English.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419117Absolutely incorrect.  The GM trumps any and all rules.  It is his game, born from his mind.  Even if he's using bog-standard Forgotten Realms, it is his Forgotten Realms.  He could very easily tell you what your character is doing, taking over your character's actions, emotions, even thoughts.

I'm still waiting to hear back from John about how his statements about "suggestions" and GM approval actually work at the table. But here is another thing that sounds weird to me.

CRKrueger, I understand what you are saying here (even if it sounds like a game I would not enjoy). But it is really different from what I know. Is this actually how you play?

I get that you are committed to this idea as part of your chosen style of play, but does it really come up?

• When you run a game of D&D, how often do you decide on the actions for the PCs?
• When you play with another GM, how often does he/she take over your character and tell you what you're doing or saying?

I'm not questioning the truth of your contention, I'm just trying to figure out if this is how you actually play, or if you are just making a point.

Quote from: TristramEvans;419145Rules-lawyering at its most pervasive and destructive, that.

I think this another example of "authority". Some of us consider GMs changing stats in mid-game to be lame and unfair. Some of us consider it just good GMing. Clearly the lines of what someone can fairly do during a game session are fluid.

But that's a whole different issue, I guess. Better to stick to the thread topic of  "narrative authority". (See also: descriptive agency, action-announcing power, Right-to-Say-What-Make-Believe-People-Do, etc.)

Quote from: BWA;418995So, I'll keep using the term "narrative authority", until someone comes up with something different. If you object to this term, please suggest something else and we can use that instead. Seriously. Constructive feedback is welcome.

I offered something different.  A "narrative suggestion".  The authority is in your hands whether you want to accept that or not but that's my suggestion.  I seriously can't think of anything more clear except maybe "statement of intent".

Quote from: BWA;418995John, it sounds like, when you play, nothing a player says has legitimacy unless it is explicitly confirmed by the GM. Is that right?

What the player says their character does is provisional.  It may have to pass through confirmation in the rules, the GM, or both.  For example, "I climb the ladder and try to kill the orc," does not mean that my character automatically climbs the ladder and takes a swing at the orc.  The GM may call for a climbing roll.  The GM may say that the orc is too far away.  It's a statement of intent, not a declaration of what happens.  

The real authority to decide what does and doesn't happen in a traditional RPG is held by the GM, who may defer to the rules.  The GM can say "no".  The rules can say "no".  The only way the players can exercise authority over what happens is by agreement by the GM and rules or by appealing to the GM or rules.

Quote from: BWA;418995So if you're running a D&D game, and you describe a tavern to us, and then sit back expectantly, and I say "Okay, I head into the tavern with a jaunty look on my face.", you're saying that, in the fictional game world, that doesn't happen until you, as the GM, approve?

I'm saying that that the GM (and the rules) has the authority to say "No, that's not what happens."  That's what authority is.  The ability to say yes or no.  That decision does not lie with the player and that the GM lets the actions a player describe enter the "narrative" without comment is not an exercise of authority on the player's part.  The authority never leaves the GM.  And if the authority is exercised implicitly rather than explicitly, it doesn't change who has the authority.

Let me put it this way.  Civilian drivers get to control their cars.  They are expected to follow the rules of the road and obey the police and it is the law and police that have the authority to take away your privilege to drive.  I, uh, "know people" who have blown past police officers doing well past the speed limit and the police officers have not stopped and ticketed them.  Does that mean that they have the authority to go whatever speed they want on the road or drive however they want?  In fact, the police normally don't interfere with most drivers as they drive around, even when they make minor mistakes.  Would you describe that as an exercise of authority, as if the driver is in control of the rules of the road, or is it simply the police not exercising the authority that they still retain and normal drivers never possess.  

Quote from: BWA;418995If so, how does that work, in the real world, at the game table? Do you nod at the person who spoke? Do you say "confirmed"? I assume it's not anything as formal as that, but I want to figure it out so we can agree on common ground before diverging.

If the GM doesn't invoke the rules or block the action, then it generally happens, though it's not uncommon for the GM to invoke the rules and dice for physical actions to confirm that the action happens (e.g., Player: "I hit the orc with my sword."  GM: "Make an attack roll").  It doesn't have to be formal and I don't know why you are trying to insist it has to be.  The point is that the authority to say "no" never leaves the GM.  The player is not exercising authority if they are not blocked by the GM or rules.  The GM or rules are not exercising the authority that they have.  Why do you insist on framing that as some sort of transfer of authority?

And I want to point out something important here.  You will notice that advocates of traditional games generally defend the right of the GM to say "no" and expect the GM to do so.  Advocates of story games, on the other hand, advocate things like "Say 'yes' or roll".  If the players really have the "narrative authority" that you are trying to say that they do, then why would you need to constrain the GM with a rule like "Say 'yes' or roll"?  Because so long as the GM can say "no", the GM holds all of the "narrative authority".

Please note that I'm not saying that games and groups can't share "narrative authority".  What I'm saying is that you are not going to understand traditional role-playing games (and particularly those that strongly advocate "Rule Zero") if you try to talk about the players having "narrative authority".  They don't.  Any "authority" you might see over the narrative is illusionary.  And while the players conventionally have authority over the minds and choices of their characters, even that can be taken by the GM or rules, though the players generally expect there to be a good reason for it.

Quote from: BWA;419156I think this another example of "authority". Some of us consider GMs changing stats in mid-game to be lame and unfair. Some of us consider it just good GMing. Clearly the lines of what someone can fairly do during a game session are fluid.

Rule-lawyering is not an exercise of authority.  It is an appeal to authority, just as real lawyering is not an exercise in authority but an appeal to authority.  That's why they call requests to retry a case an "appeal" and not "authority".  Players can appeal to the rules and can appeal to the GM in traditional role-playing games but it is the rules and GM that have the actual authority and the GM must be convinced to accept the player's argument.

Quote from: BWA;419154I get that you are committed to this idea as part of your chosen style of play, but does it really come up?

• When you run a game of D&D, how often do you decide on the actions for the PCs?
• When you play with another GM, how often does he/she take over your character and tell you what you're doing or saying?

You are confusing the exercise of authority with having the authority.  That a GM rarely chooses to exercise their authority does not mean that they don't have it or that the players do.  The GM can tell the players "no" in a traditional role-playing game whenever they want.  The only way the players can tell the GM "no" is by leaving the table, which is not real authority over the game any more than flipping over the chess board and running home is winning a chess match.

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Not as I understand the term. For the GM to have total narrative authority he'd have to be able to dictate to the other players what their PCs did ("and then Bob's Paladin lays down his sword and lets the orcs take him prisoner") and also transparently ignore the rules in service of his "narrative". Trad RPGs - both in their rules and the social contract at the table - do not give the GM full power in either case.

On the contrary, I think traditional role-playing games give both the GM and the rules the authority to dictate to the players what their PCs do, both by limiting what they can declare without using rules and dice and through various powers, magic, and technology that let NPCs take control of or influence a PC's mind.  Are you seriously saying that if the GM doesn't have the authority to say, "The orc shaman cast a spell on Bob's Paladin and he lays down his sword and lets the orcs take him prisoner"?  No, it wouldn't go over well if the GM arbitrarily told Bob what his character was doing but it also wouldn't go over too well if the GM was similarly arbitrary about just about anything else in the game.

Quote from: Grymbok;419092Hell, in many trad games, it would be considered a dick move by the GM to run the bad guys with anything other than the published stats for that kind of creature in the monster book.

You are confusing authority (what the GM can do) and propriety (what the GM should or shouldn't do, even though they can).  Most players will not be happy if the GM takes control of their character's actions without very good reason and may stop playing because of it, so it wouldn't be a good idea for the GM to do that.  But the GM could do it if they wanted to in many games, particularly those that write "Rule Zero" into their rules.

Quote from: Grymbok;419045The point is that what the player is communicating is intent. So the player's statement is legitimate, in that the GM won't normally gainsay their intent, but it doesn't guarantee the action will happen as described. To pick up on your example, this would be a perfectly legitimate exchange:

Player: "Okay, I head into the tavern with a jaunty look on my face."
GM: "You set off towards the tavern, but before you get halfway there, ninjas attack"

Of course, it would be equally legitimate for the GM to accept the action and then kick off with "OK, once you're inside you see..."

I only skimmed most of this thread, but "narrative authority" doesn't strike me personally as an inherently bad term, provided you accept that within a "trad" game, the players have zero narrative authority and the GM's narrative authority is heavily limited.

I agree with this assessment.

Quote from: BWA;419154I'm not questioning the truth of your contention, I'm just trying to figure out if this is how you actually play, or if you are just making a point.

I was making a point based on Grymbok's contention that the GM is bound by the rules of the game itself not to do such a thing.  

Cases of the GM controlling the character's actions - if you're talking about a minor case such as the player stating "I walk into the tavern, belly up to the bar and order a round on me." and I tell him "well you walk into the tavern, but there is no bar." - uncommon, but it does happen.  

Major cases of controlling actions, few, cases of controlling thoughts or emotions, practically nil. (things like goosebumps, chills, nagging idea you've seen that person before etc, I don't count as "taking control".)

Quote from: Omnifray;418988I think my current view (and it is evolving) is that storygames and immersive RPGs are different kinds of game, but they have things in common, they are on a spectrum with storygames at one end and immersive RPGs at the other, a spectrum from focus on story to focus on immersion, and somewhere in the middle you could have a halfway house which could legitimately be said to be storygame by some people, but immersive RPG by others.

The next step is to add a third type of game and then you can call the story-based games "Dramatist", the world-based immersive games "Simulationist", and the third type of game "Gamist".  And then Ron can come along and borrow parts of it and turn it into the GNS. ;)  Seriously, that's exactly how the rec.games.frp.advocacy discussions started out, with talk of spectrums and axes (plural of axis).  

If you want to avoid falling down that pit, I suggest simply accepting that different people play for different reasons and what makes a better game for one player might make a worse game for others.  That's one of the reasons why there is no such things as the perfect system.

And for the record, when I was heavily involved in rec.games.frp.advocacy as an insider, I never understood why those theory annoyed people so much, until I was on the outside for Forge theory.  The problem with theories that categorize, jargonize, and generalize is that the categories, jargon, and generalities often carry a lot of assumptions and other baggage that may be great for describing the appeal of one style of play but make it all but impossible to describe the appeal of other styles or why a style doesn't appeal.  By forcing the discussion into a rigid theory and jargon framework, it guarantees that the discussion is going to favor a particular conclusion.

Quote from: Omnifray;418988I think storygames probably ARE RPGs as most roleplayers (including immersive ones) would use that term, but they are not IMMERSIVE RPGs.

Personally, I think the argument over what is or isn't an RPG gets silly.  If you want to make horse sounds every time you move your knight in Chess or have your shoe rattle the bars and shout while it's in jail in Monopoly and call it an RPG, it doesn't really bother me all that much.

Quote from: Omnifray;418988And yes, the anti-narrativist witchhunt being pursued by some on here is just as doctrinaire and dogmatic as anything written by a pro-narrativist ever, although I think it lacks the distinctive quality of propaganda and intellectual dishonesty which a small minority of pro-narrativist writings exhibit. But it has its fair share of semantic confusion at times.

If you have several days to waste, spend some time with Google Groups reading rec.games.frp.advocacy circa 1995-1996.  The reason why immersive players often come off as being on an anti-narrativist witchhunt is that we've seen the same arguments again and again and they always seem to go the same way.  A person who never really liked traditional role-playing but saw some potential in it discovers that one can make a game run more like a story and not have nasty consequences like TPKs and tragically dead PCs by replacing randomness with player choice and letting the players and/or GM fudge through failure.  This makes the game spectacularly better for them so it's like a religious experience and with the zeal of a religious convert, they seek to fix the entire hobby with story-oriented techniques, a reduction of randomness, and so on, and generally will... not.... accept... that other people don't share their preferences and that the techniques that they are advocating actually ruin games for people with different preferences and often can... not... imagine... someone else playing that way.  After a while, it gets old and frustrating and the flamethrowers come out sometimes, just like people often stop being polite to Jehovah's Witnesses and telephone solicitors.  Not a justification but an explanation.

By the way, I'll try to reply to the stuff in the other thread later this week.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419184Major cases of controlling actions, few, cases of controlling thoughts or emotions, practically nil. (things like goosebumps, chills, nagging idea you've seen that person before etc, I don't count as "taking control".)

My group used to contain a fair number of casual players who were there to be part of the story but didn't really do much to make it happen.  Having run those players quite a bit, I noticed at least one of the GM's in my group was starting to tell the players how there characters reacted to certain things and even what they did in response.  

In practice, most players want authority over the thoughts and choices of their characters unless there is a very good reason for the GM to take control.  Even if the GM respects that authority and never tells the players what their characters think or what choices they should make, that's not "narrative authority" in any meaningful or useful sense.

BTW, I think John made an excellent point in that if we are trying to discuss role-playing games, using narrative authority really is a bad term because when it comes down to it, the players have absolutely none.

If you just want to stipulate that in a traditional rpg using the GM/player relationship, the player has no authority and go from there, that would be good.

Quote from: John Morrow;419186The next step is to add a third type of game and then you can call the story-based games "Dramatist", the world-based immersive games "Simulationist", and the third type of game "Gamist".  And then Ron can come along and borrow parts of it and turn it into the GNS. ;)  Seriously, that's exactly how the rec.games.frp.advocacy discussions started out, with talk of spectrums and axes (plural of axis).

Yeah, theory have been realizing that some people like Mountain Witch, others like Qin and others like Exalted for a long time.  It took Ron Edwards to turn decent game theory into piss-poor social science.

Quote from: John Morrow;419186If you have several days to waste, spend some time with Google Groups reading rec.games.frp.advocacy circa 1995-1996.  The reason why immersive players often come off as being on an anti-narrativist witchhunt is that we've seen the same arguments again and again and they always seem to go the same way.  A person who never really liked traditional role-playing but saw some potential in it discovers that one can make a game run more like a story and not have nasty consequences like TPKs and tragically dead PCs by replacing randomness with player choice and letting the players and/or GM fudge through failure.  This makes the game spectacularly better for them so it's like a religious experience and with the zeal of a religious convert, they seek to fix the entire hobby with story-oriented techniques, a reduction of randomness, and so on, and generally will... not.... accept... that other people don't share their preferences and that the techniques that they are advocating actually ruin games for people with different preferences and often can... not... imagine... someone else playing that way.  After a while, it gets old and frustrating and the flamethrowers come out sometimes, just like people often stop being polite to Jehovah's Witnesses and telephone solicitors.  Not a justification but an explanation.

My god, this is so true.  I mean, if someone really hates a good immersive World in Motion campaign and falls in love with narrative games, more power to them.  They did not, however, discover some secret of the universe, they found out that a different type of game works best for them.  Reading big purple and seeing that Luke Crane and Vince Baker have basically cult followers is really disturbing, especially since I'm pretty sure Luke at least doesn't want them.

Quote from: Omnifray;418982Surely even you Pundit would have to accept that a group of people can get together, before they start playing any particular game, and collectively agree on which game they want to play. The person who's going to be GMing might well ask them what sorts of directions they would like that game to go on. Would they like it to involve samurai and ninja? What about horror or a zombie-fest? How about mystery, suspense, intrigue and investigation? Or are they more up for some kind of dungeon crawl? Even if the intending GM doesn't ask, the intending players might pipe up and suggest. Does that make it not an RPG when they sit down and play? Obviously not.

That's certainly not how I develop campaigns.  While I wouldn't say that kind of scenario would strictly not be proper form as such, my own personal way of developing campaigns is that FIRST I come up with the kind of campaign I want to run and then I find the right players to run it with. Of course, I have a fairly large pool of players to work with.

QuoteThe player's right to leave the game is a question of social expectations (and I suppose legal or moral rights) in the real world. You Mr. Pundit are not the definitive arbiter of those social expectations. And really I think it's perfectly plain that in SOME situations, even if they're comparatively rare, even in the traddest RPG you can mention played by the traddest group you've ever met, the players will influence how the GM does his job. Even if it's only by sighing with boredom and saying "oh god not another orc". Which will surely predispose the GM to include fewer orcs in future. Or by reacting with glee and fervent interest when the GM stokes up the levels of mystery, suspense or horror - which may well predispose the GM to do more of that as the game goes on.

Its the GM's prerogative whether or not he's swayed by player feedback or player whining.  So this doesn't take any authority at all from the GM.  Again, the only thing the players have an absolute right to do is to say "I'm quitting the game".

QuoteIt's not simply that the GM is in charge of the social experience of playing the RPG and gives the players the right to attend and play on his terms, or quit. Everyone involved is part of a group of friends. The GM wants the players to play, and the players want entertainment that they enjoy. The GM understands that, so he responds to what the players want. He may prioritise his own preferences, fine, but somewhere in there is an acknowledgment of what the players want. Obviously the GM has the biggest practical say, almost an exclusive say in what goes on. But to try to make out that the players, socially speaking, have no kind of metagame power at all, is just unrealistic, IMHO YMMV.

No, its not some kind of feedback loop.  The GM, if he's good at his craft, makes a campaign that people want to play in. That the players have a role (in terms of their enthusiasm and commitment, etc.) in how good a game turns out to be is an obvious truth.  One really annoying player can wreck a game session; one really enthusiastic player can make a session go from good to "awesome"; but all of this has FUCK ALL to do with the GM's inherent authority.

BTW, as someone who's reviewed your games, I find it interesting that you fall on the Forge-Swine side of this debate. Of course, now that I think about it, given the agonizing rules-intensity of your game, it leads me to wonder if you weren't guided by Forge-think to create a "gamist" game?

RPGPundit

Quote from: CRKrueger;419184I was making a point based on Grymbok's contention that the GM is bound by the rules of the game itself not to do such a thing.  

Cases of the GM controlling the character's actions - if you're talking about a minor case such as the player stating "I walk into the tavern, belly up to the bar and order a round on me." and I tell him "well you walk into the tavern, but there is no bar." - uncommon, but it does happen.  

Major cases of controlling actions, few, cases of controlling thoughts or emotions, practically nil. (things like goosebumps, chills, nagging idea you've seen that person before etc, I don't count as "taking control".)

You know, you're right in that ultimately the GM can do this in a trad game. I guess (maybe it's down to being a Brit) I just see this as a bit like the Queen's powers to refuse to pass Bills sent to her by Parliament - technically it's something they can do, but in practise their ability to do it more than once without getting fired is zero.

But yeah, really this is a "deal with it or quit the game" issue, it probably wasn't a good example for the thread.

Beyond that we probably get in to some weird debate about the degree to which the validity of the published rules of an RPG have any value when examining the game in play, given the GM's ability to change the rules (which is usually enshrined in text). I'd still say though that many/most groups would get pissed with a GM who was obviously ignoring dice results and generally "cheating" on a regular basis.

Quote from: John Morrow;419180On the contrary, I think traditional role-playing games give both the GM and the rules the authority to dictate to the players what their PCs do, both by limiting what they can declare without using rules and dice and through various powers, magic, and technology that let NPCs take control of or influence a PC's mind.  Are you seriously saying that if the GM doesn't have the authority to say, "The orc shaman cast a spell on Bob's Paladin and he lays down his sword and lets the orcs take him prisoner"?  No, it wouldn't go over well if the GM arbitrarily told Bob what his character was doing but it also wouldn't go over too well if the GM was similarly arbitrary about just about anything else in the game.

Obviously the orc shaman example is fine. I was just talking about direct puppeting with no in-world justification.

QuoteYou are confusing authority (what the GM can do) and propriety (what the GM should or shouldn't do, even though they can).  Most players will not be happy if the GM takes control of their character's actions without very good reason and may stop playing because of it, so it wouldn't be a good idea for the GM to do that.  But the GM could do it if they wanted to in many games, particularly those that write "Rule Zero" into their rules.

You're right, I was.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419117That's only the current trend in rpgs in which balance and character specialsnowflakism is more important then immersion (ie. 21st century D&D).  Someone cries "But that orc had too many hitpoints" because he wasn't listening when you told him the orc looked larger then the orcs he's seen before, then he can go fuck himself.

True dat. It boggled the hell out of me the first time it came up in play. But I've seen it in play (and in fairness the guy in our group who does this does accept the "big orc" rationale, he just expects predictability as a baseline to a degree that weirds me out) as well as reported in others expectations, so thought it worth mentioning in passing.

Probably should have paused a moment to remember where I was posting though :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;419195BTW, as someone who's reviewed your games, I find it interesting that you fall on the Forge-Swine side of this debate. Of course, now that I think about it, given the agonizing rules-intensity of your game, it leads me to wonder if you weren't guided by Forge-think to create a "gamist" game?

What, specifically, makes you think that I am on the Forgite side of this debate?

I have a bit of a tendency to play devil's advocate, and I'm psychologically very much on the "open to experience" end of the spectrum, so you may find me appearing to switch sides during an argument, but that doesn't make me pro-Forge. I am certainly not pro-GNS.

Because I'm open to experience, I'm genuinely willing to revise my opinions as I go along. The blurb on the back of the Omnifray books describes them as games of storytelling. At the time I simply thought that was an attractive phrase to give non-roleplayers the basic gist of the activity:- we sit around saying what our characters do and what happens to them. To me, it was fairly ordinary use of language to call that storytelling.

I didn't realise at the time the enormous baggage that that term came with in this context. I think, at the time when I was designing Omnifray, I had not even heard of GNS, but I can't be absolutely sure. Certainly Omnifray was the successor game to a game called Miravlor which in turn was the successor game to a game called Axes & Arrows which I wrote in the mid 1990s, before GNS was even around. The spirit of all of these games was the same.

I can accept a very clear dichotomy of (1) focusing on the experience of roleplaying your character and immersing yourself in his viewpoint versus (2) focusing on the content of the events of the game, which you might or might not forgive me for calling a game-narrative.

Omnifray falls very clearly on the immersion side of that equation.

You talk about the "agonizing rules-intensity" of my game. Obviously that's your subjective perspective, no doubt shared by many other people. It's not my perspective. To me, the game runs easily and effortlessly most of the time. Possibly because I wrote the damn thing so I know it like the back of my hand.

Why did I include so many rules? I believe I was intending that:-
(1) your stats are comprehensive - the game retains consistency;
--- this was meant to help suspension of disbelief and immersion ---
(2) your stats are sufficiently differentiated - the game retains believability;
--- this was meant to help suspension of disbelief and immersion ---
(3) your stats are fair compared to other PCs' stats - the game is balanced;
--- this was meant to give everyone a fair share of the limelight ---
(4) the rules provide for enough variety that predictability is minimised;
--- this is meant to enhance your sense of the unknown ---
(5) the rules provide for enough variety that you can use them for anything;
--- this is meant to enhance the range of experiences the game provides ---

I am not interested in roleplaying games as a competitive endeavour (so-called gamism). If anything, my interest in game-balance is as a way of ensuring that:-
(1) munchkins who are willing to ruin the game by min-maxing do not get any real advantage by doing so, so it disincentivises munchkinism;
(2) clueless n00bs who don't understand CharGen don't end up with useless characters who can have no meaningful role in the game.

But game-balance can be achieved quite trivially. That wasn't the point of Omnifray. It was just one of the principles I wanted to observe. Nor was I trying to make the game particularly challenging to play in terms of manipulating stats. The way I run the game, any n00b can play and I am quite happy to run the technical rules aspects of their character, give them hints and tips etc. Those things are just there to keep the game consistent and to give the game-world the credibility inherent in that consistency.

Quote from: John Morrow;419186The next step is to add a third type of game and then you can call the story-based games "Dramatist", the world-based immersive games "Simulationist", and the third type of game "Gamist".  And then Ron can come along and borrow parts of it and turn it into the GNS. ;)  Seriously, that's exactly how the rec.games.frp.advocacy discussions started out, with talk of spectrums and axes (plural of axis).  

If you want to avoid falling down that pit, I suggest simply accepting that different people play for different reasons and what makes a better game for one player might make a worse game for others.  That's one of the reasons why there is no such things as the perfect system.

There's an obvious dichotomy between (1) an interest in immersion in your character's point of view and in the experience of the game that that leads to and (2) a preference for directing the in-game events to some particular end or purpose, which means stepping away from your in-character viewpoint to do so.

Games which are deliberately intended to focus only on combat/challenge regardless of immersion are of the latter kind. They are plainly on the storygame line of the divide. This includes hack-n-slash games which for the record I play for social reasons, but have no real interest in.

Conscious focus on "gamism" or focus on so-called "narrativism" or even focus on strict believability by means of, say, railroading to the detriment of the players' sense of ownership of their characters and therefore of their immersion - is storygaming. That I think is why WW games are in Pundit's view storygames - because the extensive railroading that he claims they lead to deprives the players of any sense of ownership of their characters and therefore of their immersion. They are an audience, not participants. Of course I think those WW games do not have to play that way in practice - they can be immersive RPGs. Whether that's what they're meant as is another matter.

Quote from: Omnifray;419249(my earlier reply to Pundit, snipped)

The thing is, I'm basically on your side of at least SOME and probably MOST of the Pundit/Forge debate. The fact that I might not agree with every single opinionated view that you have formed does NOT mean that I am on the other side of the debate.

What I enjoy, and intend to provide, is immersive roleplaying.

Now I might accept the use of some language which you do not like, such as narration or narrative authority. Some language which other immersive roleplayers on this site use seems to me to be a capitulation to that godforsaken awful pile of bunkum which is GNS. For instance, when people accept the use of the word simulation as describing immersive play. I can understand that. It had me taken in too, not many years ago. But I disagree with their language choice. That doesn't mean I think they're on the other side! It just means I think they're not helping their own cause.

Sometimes I think you don't help your own cause.

I also happen to think that (1) WW games even if they are designed as storygames can be played as immersive RPGs - I know this from experience; (2) LARP is great; (3) immersive RPGs can use limited amounts of the same sorts of techniques as storygames use without ruining everyone's immersion and without turning the game into a storygame; in fact (4) all immersive RPGs do necessarily use some elements of techniques of story, even if it's just that the GM is subconsciously pushing the game in more interesting directions, and is necessarily approaching the game-world from a global rather than in-character point of view whenever he's not simply playing an NPC. In other words, when you are GMing an immersive RPG, as GM what you are doing is essentially similar to what PLAYERS do in storygames. In that limited sense, you, the hallowed immersive GM, are storygaming - but only so that your players can roleplay immersively.

But these are analytical differences between us. They are not ideological differences. My priority is the immersive experience of the players in roleplaying their characters. I like that experience to take on a specific character - the excitement of challenge,the poignancy of dilemmas, a sense of mystery and suspense or horror and fear. As GM it is my job to provide that. And I am open to the players helping to edge the game in those directions too. I am happy for the game to include mechanics which influence them in some small way to do so or give them some small input into the direction of the game to help them do so. But I don't want them to step so far out of character so frequently that they destroy their sense of immersion.

You can't turn on everyone who happens to disagree with you on some side-issue in this debate and convince yourself that they're Forgites. That's what I mean by a witch-hunt - not actually identifying your real opponents in this debate, but imagining people to be your opponents in the debate when they are actually (substantially) on your side.

I can accept there might be a small ideological difference between us in that I am happy to accept some very small element of what I suppose is probably storygaming within an immersive RPG - such as players using fate points to ask the ref for particular plot events which the ref can give or withhold, and ways for players to earn fate points by how they play their characters. But to me the important thing is that the focus is on immersive roleplayings and those things, which I might let intrude in some minor way, are never supposed to end up taking over the game. Heightening the players' experience of immersive play is paramount. Beyond that, the differences between us are analytical, not ideological, so please don't get your knickers in a twist over them.

Quote from: Omnifray;419251WW games even if they are designed as storygames can be played as immersive RPGs - I know this from experience;

Outside of LARPing, I've never seen a white wolf game played as anything other than a dark super hero game.

Holy fuck, guys, sometimes you make Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter look like calm, rational and moderate persons.

You know this non-reasoning of "NARRATIVE IS SOMETHING YOU CANNOT SAY BECAUSE YOU'D BE TEH SWINEZZZ" is the kind of reasoning that has made the 9/11 a victory for Al Qaeda. You are trying to forbid theuse of proper English words which can accurately describe what happens at a game table, only because some guy you hate used them. Seriously, trying to censoring the use of the word is quite ridiculous.

I don't believe in Swine conspiracies, but you react as if there's one and somehow make their consequences real. You behave like the TSA, making the terrorists wn every day.

In RPGs, as in any social situation between humans, there is a social contract. It can be implicit or explicit. Sorry if you don't like it, but there it is. Authority doesn't come from the rules, it comes from the person trying to hold it. In some games, the GM is King Asshole and people complies by that. In some others, the players will tell him "That call doesn't make sense, we don't agree" and they will agree on something.

As a GM you earn the authority and respect you get, and same as a player. It's a purely psychological and social process, and trying to deny its existence is absurd.

Many persons play trad games letting a lot of space for players to decide. This, in itself, doesn't prevent the player from immersing in their character, as far as my experience tells me. When a player tells me "I call my contacts to know about Dirty Jim" and I tell them "Who's your contact?" my player's still immersed despite he's making up the NPC on the fly.

Quote from: Koltar;418786Oh and what the fuck do you mean by "LoA"?. Is that shorthand for Amber the Roleplaying game? (I see "LoA" and I think of picnic cookouts set in Hawaii or other exotic locales....like Risa. )

LoA probably stands for Legends of Anglerre, I guess.

QuoteIf you bother to read past threads where this has been mentioned you'll notice that Pundit has already shredded your angle on that within the last year.

Nope. Apart from stating his opinion, that no doubt it works pretty dandy for him, Pundit has proven nothing as probably there is nothing to prove. Pundit has a way of running games that works for him, and there are other persons doing different things that works for them.

Quote from: Omnifray;418988And yes, the anti-narrativist witchhunt being pursued by some on here is just as doctrinaire and dogmatic as anything written by a pro-narrativist ever, although I think it lacks the distinctive quality of propaganda and intellectual dishonesty which a small minority of pro-narrativist writings exhibit. But it has its fair share of semantic confusion at times.

The Pundit calling other persons pretentious is priceless. People making dogmatic assertions about the One True American Way of Playing RPGs is also priceless.

And passing your personal preference and anecdotical evidence as The Truth About Games is intelectually dishonest, either if it's a Forge author or the Pundit the guy doing it.

The truth for me is that out there people play their RPGs in many many different ways. And I don't find morally questionable that some person may say "emulation is unimportant to me" or "I'm not interested in immersing myself in any PC because thisis just a game."

Quote from: TristramEvans;419143Speaking as someone with zero interest in "game theory" and a background in psychology, social contracts do indeed exist and play a vital role in modern society. Perhaps the term has been perverted or misused by online game theorists, but the original concept is a valid and integral part of socio-anthropological studies.

Of course it is.

Quote from: Imperator;419255You know this non-reasoning of "NARRATIVE IS SOMETHING YOU CANNOT SAY BECAUSE YOU'D BE TEH SWINEZZZ" is the kind of reasoning that has made the 9/11 a victory for Al Qaeda. You are trying to forbid theuse of proper English words which can accurately describe what happens at a game table, only because some guy you hate used them. Seriously, trying to censoring the use of the word is quite ridiculous.

This is totally true. If you don't say "narrative," the swine win.

Quote from: Imperator;419255I don't believe in Swine conspiracies ...

Actually, I'm not convinced that Pundit is entirely wrong about the conspiracy side of things. At the very least, I'd have to say that a lot of Forgite theory is so full of propaganda and warped semantics that it can be very hard not to ascribe some of those features to intellectual dishonesty or at the very least some deliberate endeavour calculated to present roleplaying in a very specific light with a very specific agenda, namely a pro-so-called-Narrativist agenda. See, Pundit? On your side on this one.

But I think Pundit totally overdoes it by assuming that anyone and everyone who agrees with even some tiny little thing that the Forge stands for or even simply just thinks that some of the use of language which originated in the Forge might be useful - that any such person is therefore ipso facto part of some evil conspiracy with no other possible purpose than to fuck up roleplaying as a hobby forever and entice as many people as possible into wallowing in pretentious crapulence while convincing themselves that they are artistes who are hip, cool and edgy because they are spending so much time not having fun. Obviously, that's a load of bollocks.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419195--- snip ---

Here's a great analogy. Pundit, I know you're not a Communist in real life, and Ron Edwards probably isn't an Evil Capitalist. I certainly have no real basis for suggesting otherwise. But just for the sake of argument, hear me out.

As a metaphor:- hardcore immersionist roleplay is extreme left-wing economic politics and hardcore storygaming is extreme right-wing economic politics. You, Pundit, are a Communist. I am a Socialist. Ron Edwards is an Evil Capitalist. Remember, this is just a metaphor.

Now you as a Communist and I as a Socialist are both left-wing in terms of economic politics. We both think that Evil Capitalism is horribly unjust and wrong. We don't want it in Our World. We both want a Left-Wing Utopia. We both hate the Evil Capitalist.

I'm not saying that I personally hate Ron Edwards. Remember, this is just a metaphor. What I actually hate is GNS and its malign influence on the hobby. But back to the metaphor.

Now, it turns out that you, the Communist, and I, the Socialist, are basically on the same side. We are fighting the (self-)righteous cause of left-wing economic politics.

But you, the Communist, hate everything associated with Evil Capitalism. So idealogically committed are you to your hatred of Evil Capitalism that in your vision of a Left-Wing Utopia there is no personal property at all. (Personal property as opposed to collective property, not personal property in essentially the sense of movable property as opposed to real estate in essentially the sense of immovable property).

I, on the other hand, as a mere Socialist, believe that some form of immediate individual control of inanimate things based on physical possession is inevitable and inherent in the human condition even in a Left-Wing Utopia. I see this immediate individual control of inanimate things based on physical possession as a kind of rudimentary property right, even if I don't think it has any intrinsic moral importance. What's more, as a Socialist I can accept that if that rudimentary form of property right inevitably has a place in a Left-Wing Utopia, it's at least arguable that other forms of limited personal property rights (in the same sense mentioned above) could be of practical value to the Left-Wing Utopia from a pragmatic point of view.

As a Socialist I'm idealistically committed to the Left-Wing Utopia, but I'm willing to see sense when it comes to some limited element of personal property. You as a Communist see this as a betrayal and turn on me like some kind of mad Bolshevik assassinating a Trotskyite for not being quite enough of a Communist. Meanwhile the Evil Capitalist sits in the corner wallowing gleefully in his crapulence knowing that you the Communist are too distracted shadow-boxing imagined enemies like the Socialist to begin dealing with him properly.

So as a Socialist I'm asking the Communist to be a bit open-minded about the fact that we both might want essentially the same Left-Wing Utopia. I would be perfectly happy in exactly your Left-Wing Utopia. The fact that I would claim as a matter of philosophical analysis that it inherently and inevitably involved property rights, and that you would disagree, is a difference of analysis, not ideology. And I suspect that you would actually be pretty happy in my Left-Wing Utopia, if you only gave it a chance, and weren't so convinced that ANY ELEMENT AT ALL of personal property, however trivial, inevitably spells the end of the Left-Wing Utopia, which, given that some element of personal property is on my view and on a true analysis inherent even in the Left-Wing Utopia, is patently bollocks.

Of course, you could say, Pundit, that the Forgites and the White Wolfers are doing exactly the same thing in reverse. If we switch left- and right-wing politics around maybe the Forgites are the Communists, the White Wolfers are the Socialists and you are the Evil Capitalist lurking in the corner. Again the Communist turns on the Socialist for not being quite extreme enough. But again the Communist is really harming the Righteous Left-Wing Cause as a whole, which is HIS cause. It's self-defeating. What he ought to do is be a bit more open-minded about the Socialist and treat him as a mildly misguided ally who is essentially fighting the good fight, and not as an enemy. And that's how you should probably think of me! Even if you don't need allies - it can't HURT to have them.

Quote from: Omnifray;419299Actually, I'm not convinced that Pundit is entirely wrong about the conspiracy side of things. At the very least, I'd have to say that a lot of Forgite theory is so full of propaganda and warped semantics that it can be very hard not to ascribe some of those features to intellectual dishonesty or at the very least some deliberate endeavour calculated to present roleplaying in a very specific light with a very specific agenda, namely a pro-so-called-Narrativist agenda. See, Pundit? On your side on this one.

..

 It's self-defeating. What he ought to do is be a bit more open-minded about the Socialist and treat him as a mildly misguided ally who is essentially fighting the good fight, and not as an enemy. And that's how you should probably think of me! Even if you don't need allies - it can't HURT to have them.

True enough but you are forgetting that The RPGPUNDIT is not a person its a rhetorical device created by the owner of therpgsite (look it up on WhoIs if you want more details). As a rhetorical device the RPGPUNDIT can afford to never compromise or admit error or defeat and can engage in astonishing hyperbole in pursuit of its Rhetorical aims, to whit the claim that if you can spend a Fate point to find a clue then you are playing a storygame and are a swine.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419319True enough but you are forgetting that The RPGPUNDIT is not a person its a rhetorical device created by the owner of therpgsite (look it up on WhoIs if you want more details). As a rhetorical device the RPGPUNDIT can afford to never compromise or admit error or defeat and can engage in astonishing hyperbole in pursuit of its Rhetorical aims, to whit the claim that if you can spend a Fate point to find a clue then you are playing a storygame and are a swine.

Please explain WhoIs, preferably with link???

In my games you cannot spend a Fate point to find a clue... unless the ref let's you. Oink or not oink?

Quote from: Omnifray;419323In my games you cannot spend a Fate point to find a clue... unless the ref let's you. Oink or not oink?

If there are such things as fate points to begin with then you are already in storygame territory.

Not that I consider story games to be swine material or anything, just distinctly different from a traditional rpg.

No Fucking Politics!

Quote from: danbuter;419331No Fucking Politics!

It was only an analogy, not actual fucking politics!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;419330If there are such things as fate points to begin with then you are already in storygame territory.

Not that I consider story games to be swine material or anything, just distinctly different from a traditional rpg.

How about:- immersive RPGs intrinsically include elements of storygame, and vice-versa. Fate points are an element of storygame. That could be a weak or a strong element.

In WHFRP 2e, for instance, Fate Points are quite a strong element of storygame, because they give your character assured narrative immunity from particular events. If the Fate Points can be veto'd by the ref and have a generally weaker effect, that is a weaker element of storygame.

Push a little further, we might reach the Godwin at last! :D

Quote from: Omnifray;419337How about:- immersive RPGs intrinsically include elements of storygame, and vice-versa. Fate points are an element of storygame. That could be a weak or a strong element.

In WHFRP 2e, for instance, Fate Points are quite a strong element of storygame, because they give your character assured narrative immunity from particular events. If the Fate Points can be veto'd by the ref and have a generally weaker effect, that is a weaker element of storygame.

An immersive rpg doesn't have to include elements of a storygame. What are some of these intrinsic elements you are referring to?

There are games with stronger or weaker story elements in them.

The distinction is a simple one. Do you as a player, engage in gameplay activity from outside of your assumed role?

Another simple way to determine what is being played beyond mere mechanics would be, what is the primary purpose of gameplay (beyond having fun)?

Is it to explore a fictional gamespace from the perspective of an assumed persona (trad. rpg) or is to create collaborative fiction within the medium of the game (storygame)?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;419341An immersive rpg doesn't have to include elements of a storygame. What are some of these intrinsic elements you are referring to?

...

The distinction is a simple one. Do you as a player, engage in gameplay activity from outside of your assumed role?

Not necessarily, but the GM does. Engages in gameplay activity from outside of the assumed role of any character, that is. He's storygaming, even if I'm not.

And the unfolding events of the game also create an incidental story, even though that isn't really the point of the activity.

And whenever you have your character do something just because it makes the direction that the game takes better or more exciting in any way, rather than as immersive roleplay because it feels natural, that's an element of storygame. It's very easily done, accidentally as it were, even by trad gamers.

Quote from: Benoist;419340Push a little further, we might reach the Godwin at last! :D

From the Gospel According to Team America:-

There are three kinds of people in the world. Dicks, pussies and assholes.

Now the pussies don't like the dicks, because dicks fuck pussies. But dicks also fuck assholes. So the pussies need the dicks, cos otherwise the assholes would just shit all over everyone.

Now, I don't have any kind of fixed opinion on who's a dick, who's a pussy and who's an asshole. But if you want your Godwin, why don't you post your ideas here???

Quote from: Omnifray;419342Not necessarily, but the GM does. Engages in gameplay activity from outside of the assumed role of any character, that is. He's storygaming, even if I'm not.

The GM assumes the role of many characters. The GM represents everything in the imagined gamespace except the player characters. This in an of itself does not add intrinsic story elements into the game.

Quote from: Omnifray;419342And the unfolding events of the game also create an incidental story, even though that isn't really the point of the activity.

Quite so. Just as one could look back upon a game of chess and use the sequence of play to weave a tale of battle fought upon some faraway field.
It doesn't mean that the game was played to facilitate such a tale.

Quote from: Omnifray;419342And whenever you have your character do something just because it makes the direction that the game takes better or more exciting in any way, rather than as immersive roleplay because it feels natural, that's an element of storygame. It's very easily done, accidentally as it were, even by trad gamers.

Yes. This happens quite often. Activities are performed in game by some not because the actions are in character for the assumed persona or happen to make sense but because it seems like a cool thing to do or something similar.
That is a lean toward storygaming even without any specific mechanics to back it up.

This is a tricky one because the actual motivation for the activity is everything. People do strange things that they wouldn't "ordinarily" do in real life sometimes. When asked why, the answer is sometimes along the lines of "because I felt like it". These moments will pop up in games just as they do in the real world. If the answer is more like " I thought it would make a better story if I did X" then you have story creation starting to become an actual goal of play instead of a byproduct of it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;419368The GM represents everything in the imagined gamespace except the player characters. This in an of itself does not add intrinsic story elements into the game.

It does, in the sense that the GM is doing exactly the same thing that storygamers do when they are sitting down at the table as players:- he considers the game-world from outside the perspective of any single character. The fact that the GM does so in order to weave a World in Motion for the characters to explore is irrelevant to this particular (semantic?) point. He is not immersing himself in a character's viewpoint. He is not, therefore, roleplaying immersively at that particular point in time. Sure he may be when he plays an NPC, but not when he "plays" the role of the "World in Motion". You could say he is immersed in the game-world, but I'm fairly sure storygamers are immersed in the story as a whole, which is to say, they are immersed in the game-narrative. I'm not sure there's a significant distinction to be had between being immersed in the game-world and being immersed in the game-narrative. Both are abstract from any particular character's point of view. The "World in Motion" is not a character that you can immerse yourself in, any more than the game-narrative is.

QuoteIt doesn't mean that the game was played to facilitate such a tale.

Agreed but I never implied anything to the contrary.

QuoteIf the answer is more like " I thought it would make a better story if I did X" then you have story creation starting to become an actual goal of play instead of a byproduct of it.

The fact is many players will do this for this reason but not be able to articulate it in those terms. Or they will do it for a closely similar but subtley distinct reason which is still as close as makes precious little difference to the notion of doing it to create a better story. If they are doing something to control the in-game sequence of events for any reason at all other than naturally acting as their character would, even if their motivation is subconscious, they are leaning towards storygaming as you put it, or, as I would put it, momentarily storygaming instead of, or perhaps as well as, roleplaying immersively. I don't think it's a big deal. It's almost unavoidable.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;419330If there are such things as fate points to begin with then you are already in storygame territory.

That's just silly. Warhammer Fantasy, Top Secret, James Bond 007, Hero, every Superhero game ever made (since FASERIP), Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Shadowrun...you're claiming all of these are "storygames" simply because of the existence of a point-based resource mechanic?

Quote from: Cranewings;419253Outside of LARPing, I've never seen a white wolf game played as anything other than a dark super hero game.

I ran a Changeling: The Dreaming game for years. Threw out many rules, and ignored 90% of the setting info, but the premise was the same: urban fantasy with fae Changelings. For adventures, I mainly used Call of Cthulhu scenarios I modified, replacing Mythos entities with creatures from Folklore. Speaking as someone who GMed FASERIP for years, it bore no resemblance to a superhero game. It was more like Unknown Armies by way of Pan's Labyrinth.

For all the complaints about games, there's very little mention made regarding GM responsibility. I don't go for player-narrative control, because the GM has a very specific role that "forge-esque" games undermine. But this isn't as detrimental to the game as GMs who do not use their "narrative authority" correctly. The "feel" of a game is entirely in the hands of the GM. If people are playing Vampire as a game about "dark superheroes", then the blame lies with the GM more than anyone.

The problem with White Wolf was not the rules system*, it was the fluff. And by "problem", I mean a marketing strategy aimed at people outside the hobby at the expense of those already in the hobby. But, I mean wasn't that the general theme of the 90s overall? It sure was in the comicbook industry at the time.


* - although the rules systems did have problems. To this day I don't understand how magic in Changeling was supposed to work.

Quote from: TristramEvans;419372That's just silly. Warhammer Fantasy, Top Secret, James Bond 007, Hero, every Superhero game ever made (since FASERIP), Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Shadowrun...you're claiming all of these are "storygames" simply because of the existence of a point-based resource mechanic?

Yes.

A great deal of what you listed is very tied to certain tropes and genre appropriate activity.

For example if a James Bond villain were to acquire common sense and just double tap the annoying fucker right in the head, the game would be very short and ruined as a James Bond adventure.

Most supers games feature similar rules to maintain the feel for the genre and facilitate the playing out of certain kinds of stories that have the correct feel.

This doesn't make these games bad but it does make them more story focused than others.

Quote from: TristramEvans;419375I ran a Changeling: The Dreaming game for years. Threw out many rules, and ignored 90% of the setting info, but the premise was the same: urban fantasy with fae Changelings. For adventures, I mainly used Call of Cthulhu scenarios I modified, replacing Mythos entities with creatures from Folklore. Speaking as someone who GMed FASERIP for years, it bore no resemblance to a superhero game. It was more like Unknown Armies by way of Pan's Labyrinth.

For all the complaints about games, there's very little mention made regarding GM responsibility. I don't go for player-narrative control, because the GM has a very specific role that "forge-esque" games undermine. But this isn't as detrimental to the game as GMs who do not use their "narrative authority" correctly. The "feel" of a game is entirely in the hands of the GM. If people are playing Vampire as a game about "dark superheroes", then the blame lies with the GM more than anyone.

The problem with White Wolf was not the rules system*, it was the fluff. And by "problem", I mean a marketing strategy aimed at people outside the hobby at the expense of those already in the hobby. But, I mean wasn't that the general theme of the 90s overall? It sure was in the comicbook industry at the time.


* - although the rules systems did have problems. To this day I don't understand how magic in Changeling was supposed to work.

I just wanted to say that your Changeling game sounds fucking awesome.

Quote from: Omnifray;419250Conscious focus on "gamism" or focus on so-called "narrativism" or even focus on strict believability by means of, say, railroading to the detriment of the players' sense of ownership of their characters and therefore of their immersion - is storygaming. That I think is why WW games are in Pundit's view storygames - because the extensive railroading that he claims they lead to deprives the players of any sense of ownership of their characters and therefore of their immersion. They are an audience, not participants. Of course I think those WW games do not have to play that way in practice - they can be immersive RPGs. Whether that's what they're meant as is another matter.

For the record, you've misread my position on WW's games. They are definitely NOT "storygames" of the Forge kind.  They are "story-based gaming", that is WW's own term for the type of game they're supposed to be, but this is really an ideology of RPGs.  White Wolf games ARE real RPGs, unlike Forge games which are not.  "Story-based" games, as opposed to storygames, are really just regular RPGs with a very heavy reliance on the idea that the GM is supposed to be the "storyteller" who railroads cheerleader-PCs through a grand tale of his crafting; or more often, through a grand tale of WW's crafting with tons of metaplot. That certainly makes them crappy games, and in combination with their pretentiousness makes them Swine games, but it doesn't make them "Storygames".

In fact, I probably agree with most of Ron Edwards' analysis of the failings of White Wolf's games, in that they claim to be something totally new and different than the RPGs of the "unwashed masses" when in fact they are not anything really different at all.  Where I differ with him is in the conclusions of what is to be done about that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;419384In fact, I probably agree with most of Ron Edwards' analysis of the failings of White Wolf's games, in that they claim to be something totally new and different than the RPGs of the "unwashed masses" when in fact they are not anything really different at all.  Where I differ with him is in the conclusions of what is to be done about that.

RPGPundit

When I realized that, I personally decided to just ignore the railroading grand-tale storytelling bullshit, and ignore the Swinish pretentiousness of it all. I treated them like the sandbox games they are, to great results, actually. Which still makes Vampire: the Masquerade (and Co.) one of the best games I ever ran.

Quote from: Benoist;419388When I realized that, I personally decided to just ignore the railroading grand-tale storytelling bullshit, and ignore the Swinish pretentiousness of it all. I treated them like the sandbox games they are, to great results, actually. Which still makes Vampire: the Masquerade (and Co.) one of the best games I ever ran.

I think WW has made some of the best corebooks ever, but some very lousy supplements. The corebooks are always full of opportunity while the additional info in the supplements seems -at least to me- to constrict that afterwards.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419398I think WW has made some of the best corebooks ever, but some very lousy supplements. The corebooks are always full of opportunity while the additional info in the supplements seems -at least to me- to constrict that afterwards.

Core books are always better than supplements. How many D&D people have you known that try to run "Core Only" games.

Do to how bad the Advanced Players Guide and the GM's Guide for Pathfinder are, I might not ever want to use any of their supplements.

We used to have a blast playing Werewolf, and tearing up vampires and polluters into tiny little bits.

Quote from: Benoist;419388When I realized that, I personally decided to just ignore the railroading grand-tale storytelling bullshit, and ignore the Swinish pretentiousness of it all. I treated them like the sandbox games they are, to great results, actually. Which still makes Vampire: the Masquerade (and Co.) one of the best games I ever ran.

I think one of the reasons Vampire and Werewolf worked for me is I never bought into the story bullshit to begin with, I just ran it from the start the way I ran D&D and Shadowrun.

This thread is kind of all over the place, so I'll just stick to my little corner of the conversation.

WARNING: Long post! Split up into two bits.

Quote from: John Morrow;419171I offered something different.  A "narrative suggestion".  The authority is in your hands whether you want to accept that or not but that's my suggestion.  I seriously can't think of anything more clear except maybe "statement of intent".

I understand what you are saying, and it sounds like we play D&D pretty much the same way. A player might declare any number of actions, and the GM always reserves the option to negate those declarations, or at least walk them back, based on "GM knowledge".

That is to say, something the GM made up - either ahead of time or on the spot - that is counter to the player's declaration. To use CRKrueger's example, if he says "I enter the tavern and walk up to the bar and order a flagon of mead!", I might say "No way ... this is a way-post on the edge of the frontier. There's no bar. Just a greasy old man filling wineskins from a barrel in the corner."

In that case, the GM's narrative authority trumps that of the player. (With the caveat that, to some posters, the player has no authority, of course).

So let's stipulate that, in most traditional games, the GM has the power to negate player's declarations. (It's worth mentioning that there's no such thing as a monolithic "trad" gaming style. Your weekly D&D game might be work totally differently than someone else's especially in terms of unspoken rules of social etiquette. But that's certainly something we all get, and not worth arguing over.)

Where the interesting ground lies is in the in-between spaces.

(MORE)

In the above example, yes, the GM negates the player's narration. But he doesn't do it to be a jerk on a power trip. He does it because he's got a little piece of fiction in his mind (the "tavern" is really just a wolf-hide tent), and in a good D&D game, the GM is responsible for verbally painting a picture of the world for the other players.

But what happens when the GM doesn't have that little bit of fiction that contradicts whatever the player said? Let's say he has no idea what the tavern is like. It just came up.

Now, in a creative group, someone is going to fill the bland empty fictional space of "a tavern" with some description. In many groups, that person will be the GM, for various possible reasons.

But it doesn't have to be the GM. At this point there's no "game" stuff at stake. The tavern isn't part of the GM's pre-existing set-up, it's just window dressing. But everyone's enjoyment of the game is enhanced when that stuff becomes more real, so someone should take a moment to describe it.

So, in a case like that, what happens?

Let's say that a player says "Oh, yeah, this is Mad Mort's Wayhouse. He's a big, fat mercenary who hates dwarves with a passion." That's cool, and fun, especially if there is a PC dwarf.

Now, the GM had no particular idea there, so he's like "Yeah, totally. Good luck, Thorin!" And play continues, with the GM taking the role of Mad Mort and making the encounter miserable for Thorin, the PC dwarf. (It's those little, unplanned bits that make for great sessions, I think.)

Does this sound like something that might happen at your table?

If so, that player exercised agency over the shared fiction of the game world. He invented something cool, and narrated it for the rest of the group, who all accepted its validity, including the GM.

Mind you, we all agree that the GM could have negated it, but since he had no game plan, his only reason would have been power-tripping, and hence, sickishness. Most importantly, in our example, he did NOT negate it. He ran with it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419189BTW, I think John made an excellent point in that if we are trying to discuss role-playing games, using narrative authority really is a bad term because when it comes down to it, the players have absolutely none.

I don't think I necessarily agree, but I see now that "authority" was a bad choice of words on this particular forum, for a number of reasons. Luckily, that word is not particularly important to the point I'm discussing, so we can drop it.

Quote from: BWA;419459But what happens when the GM doesn't have that little bit of fiction that contradicts whatever the player said? Let's say he has no idea what the tavern is like. It just came up.

Just to jump in briefly...I don't have any immersion experience on the same order as John's, but still when GMing I'd feel that the world has a sense of reality, and that this goes away when the players start dictating what's happening. Quite aside from game balance reasons, I more or less instinctively dislike interference from players in it. I instinctively loathe (for example) the idea of 4E treasure parcels being chosen by players, for exactly the same reason...nothing to do with 'game balance' but instinctively.

QuoteDoes this sound like something that might happen at your table?
...

Mind you, we all agree that the GM could have negated it, but since he had no game plan, his only reason would have been power-tripping, and hence, sickishness. Most importantly, in our example, he did NOT negate it. He ran with it.

Not at my table. I'd go to a fair length to make sure it *looked* like I'd designed the tavern, if nothing else. Its not about "power tripping" - PCs in my games are free to go where they like and do what they want. When I'm playing, the reciprocal applies i.e. I don't expect or want to be asked for input.

Quote from: BWA;419459Now, in a creative group, someone is going to fill the bland empty fictional space of "a tavern" with some description. In many groups, that person will be the GM, for various possible reasons.

But it doesn't have to be the GM. At this point there's no "game" stuff at stake. The tavern isn't part of the GM's pre-existing set-up, it's just window dressing. But everyone's enjoyment of the game is enhanced when that stuff becomes more real, so someone should take a moment to describe it.

So, in a case like that, what happens?

Let's say that a player says "Oh, yeah, this is Mad Mort's Wayhouse. He's a big, fat mercenary who hates dwarves with a passion." That's cool, and fun, especially if there is a PC dwarf.

Now, the GM had no particular idea there, so he's like "Yeah, totally. Good luck, Thorin!" And play continues, with the GM taking the role of Mad Mort and making the encounter miserable for Thorin, the PC dwarf. (It's those little, unplanned bits that make for great sessions, I think.)

Does this sound like something that might happen at your table?

No.

That is not a role playing game. That is a story game. Story games bore the hell out of me.

PS: "But everyone's enjoyment of the game is enhanced when that stuff becomes more real" That's the issue with me. When I start looking at the game as an author rather than my character, the game becomes LESS real to me, not more. I'm not even role playing anymore. I'm making stuff up like I would write a story. When I want to write a story, I write a story. When I want to play a role playing game, I play a role playing game.

Quote from: Benoist;419463No.

That is not a role playing game. That is a story game. Story games bore the hell out of me.

According to the definition on wikipedia it is a roleplaying game and honestly, I see no reason to disagree. I doubt that when Gygax created roleplaying games he meant it to be a category excluding games where a little narrative authority went around the table. And for most RPGers this should fundamentally be the same, too.
I don't even see a reason for a distinction between RPG and "storygame", whatever that is. Or a reason to deny the storygamers the "title" of RPG gamers. That's just ridiculous.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419465According to the definition on wikipedia it is a roleplaying game and honestly, I see no reason to disagree.

Too bad, I do. I really don't give a shit how wikipedia defines role playing games. I know what I mean, and you might want to try understanding what I mean as well, instead of going for the dictionary.

Or you could use the definition everyone has access to, instead of the one in your head and explain where you differ instead of leaving people to guess why you over some obscure point (and let's face it, the distribution of narrative authority is a little bit and not a major point) have a differing opinion.

Or to put it in your words: I don't give a shit how YOU define roleplaying games and why would I? It is not like you wrote a book about it with nice citations to show me how you came to that definition, which I thne can easily follow, carefully weigh and then chose to disagree or agree. No you ramble on the internet. Claiming to be able to define something this way is ridiculous.

You're on a discussion forum, and answer to my posts. De facto, you do care enough about my posts to answer them. Which makes your statement kind of nonsensical. Now, either we try to have a conversation, which means you try to understand what I mean instead of hair-splitting word definitions, or you just have an agenda, actually don't agree with me, but don't have the balls to do so on your terms, with your own experience, instead resorting to silly appeals of authority choosing wikipedia of all sources (lol). Just tell me you disagree and be done with it. Don't try to tell me "everyone understands the word like I do" (I don't know 'everyone'. Do you?) or "wikipedia says so."

By the way, I can remember two different occasions in which Gary Gygax was actually asked about the notion of storylines and stuff in his games. He answered both times using pretty much the same reply, which amounted to "my games are not stories. The story's the stuff you share with your friends once you're done playing the game."

I searched for the actual quotes but never found them. But hey, you're going to think I'm making that up, for sure. Whatever. Point is, you don't have any authority over me, and you don't speak for "everyone," nor "most people," for that matter.

You're free to disagree, and enjoy story games, but don't tell me what I can and cannot say because you happen to agree with wikipedia (which incidentally, does sound exceedingly ridiculous to me, since you threw the word at me), thank you very much.

:)

IME, one thing that I noticed about most average-joe gamers is that responsibility of dictation is inconsistent.  While in some groups the GM always interprets rolls and dictates what happens, a lot of my friends (and it's even something I do when running a game) sort of pass the totem -- if you succeed on a roll, your stated intent happens and you have permission to dictate within the bounds of your original intent.  I've also allowed players to dictate an entire scene if it was related to their character in some way.

There's also the 50/50 rule for player-input that I picked up from a few d20 GMs who have no idea what the Forge or GNS are.

Quote from: Benoist;419470You're on a discussion forum, and answer to my posts. De facto, you do care enough about my posts to answer them. Which makes your statement kind of nonsensical.

Being on a discussion forum, doesn't mean that I either have an agenda or have to buy into your definition of a RPG. Saying "hey, here is a widespread definition. Let's use that" is a totally valid way of going about it.
And yeah, the wikipedia bashing is in order when going for highly scientific or legal articles. The definition someone quoted from a book describing a GAME will be close enough.
I do believe you when you say Gygax said that, I don't see how that prevents games where narrative authority is shared from being RPGs. After all, even when you are sharing narrative authority, you are still playing a game, the story always comes afterwards and is a product of the process of playing, because how on earth would there already be a story before you play?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419472Being on a discussion forum, doesn't mean that I either have an agenda or have to buy into your definition of a RPG.

Of course you don't have to! But don't go about it all "wikipedia said that" and "it's not like you wrote a book about it." Jesus Christ man. I'm a dude on a discussion forum, you're a dude on a discussion forum. There. Done.

Discuss with me. Tell me what you think. Don't try to tell me what I should think and how I should think about it.

Quote from: Benoist;419473Of course you don't have to! But don't go about it all "wikipedia said that" and "it's not like you wrote a book about it." Jesus Christ man. I'm a dude on a discussion forum, you're a dude on a discussion forum. There. Done.

Discuss with me. Tell me what you think. Don't try to tell me what I should think and how I should think about it.

That is indeed a very good idea. I don't mean to be snarky, but I suggest you do the same, which in the post I originally quoted, you didn't. You made a statement of fact, without explanation or reasoning. So, of course, my response to that was rather short, as you didn't give me a lot to work with and still haven't.
You have explained, that in your opinion story games are no real RPGs because shared narrative authority means, that somehow the story isn't the result of people playing the game. You will have to give a few more details to that, as that, to be blunt, doesn't make any sense to me, because as I said in my previous post, of course story is a result of play, where else should it come from?

Quote from: BWA;419459In the above example, yes, the GM negates the player's narration. But he doesn't do it to be a jerk on a power trip. He does it because he's got a little piece of fiction in his mind (the "tavern" is really just a wolf-hide tent), and in a good D&D game, the GM is responsible for verbally painting a picture of the world for the other players.

But what happens when the GM doesn't have that little bit of fiction that contradicts whatever the player said? Let's say he has no idea what the tavern is like. It just came up.

Now, in a creative group, someone is going to fill the bland empty fictional space of "a tavern" with some description. In many groups, that person will be the GM, for various possible reasons.

But it doesn't have to be the GM. At this point there's no "game" stuff at stake. The tavern isn't part of the GM's pre-existing set-up, it's just window dressing. But everyone's enjoyment of the game is enhanced when that stuff becomes more real, so someone should take a moment to describe it.

So, in a case like that, what happens?

Something like this doesn't really happen at my table in most fantasy settings (in the case of D&D).  In a town I've got detailed info on most places adventurers would go and notes on everything else.

In a game with a very large town or city (for example Shadowrun) well then it's impossible to have every place detailed.  So what happens in my campaign when a character gets chased into a bar?  If he's in a hurry, he's going to ask questions because he has a plan to escape and is asking me if those options exist (can I see a back door, is there a stage or dance floor, how loud is the music, etc...)  I make that stuff up on the fly.  In a sense, the player is helping to create the place on the fly, because I am "yes"ing or "no"ing his questions.  The big difference is, my players are roleplayers, not much interested in storygaming, so the player has no intent of creating the bar.  That's a metagame task totally outside his character.  He wants to escape and so together we end up creating the bar as a side-effect of him accomplishing his in-character goals.  I'm using this example because it specifically happened with a "guest GM".

We're in a Shadowrun campaign run by a guy who plays in our group.  He wasn't much into prep, and kind of wanted help in developing stuff for Shadowrun, the first time he'd GMed non-fantasy.  When our group went into a bar we hadn't been in before, the guys started asking questions.  The GM responded "What do you see?"  One player responded "I see Red-headed elf triplets on the dance floor and they just fell in love with me."  We all started laughing (including the GM) and we moved on from there, with the GM tossing the Storygaming in the trash and boning up on his improv skills and becoming one of the most crazyass on the fly GMs I've seen.

Players like mine are like John, they don't WANT any authority over the world. If they want to create worlds, they start GMing.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419474That is indeed a very good idea. I don't mean to be snarky, but I suggest you do the same, which in the post I originally quoted, you didn't. You made a statement of fact, without explanation or reasoning. So, of course, my response to that was rather short, as you didn't give me a lot to work with and still haven't.
You have explained, that in your opinion story games are no real RPGs because shared narrative authority means, that somehow the story isn't the result of people playing the game. You will have to give a few more details to that, as that, to be blunt, doesn't make any sense to me, because as I said in my previous post, of course story is a result of play, where else should it come from?

Maybe you're not really familiar with Storygames, but in many of them the story starts even before play as players decide what themes are going to be explored in the storyarc.  Then the play is broken down sometimes into literal Acts and Scenes, with players typically able to create complications or problems for their character to make the story more interesting, and get some mechanical benefit as a result.  There's a reason they call them Storygames, and it has very little to do with the in-character immersion of roleplaying.

My poor little head is spinning.  A lot of signifying seems to be going on in this thread rather than open discussion.  Is Ars Magica (fifth edition for arguments sake) as written not a role-playing game?  Troupe style play does not imply that a GM must bow to the will of other players, but it does make the authority of precedent very strong.  And precedent should be strong even in a game with only on individual helming the GM post.  Without the explanation (perhaps something like, "That was a pinheaded decision on my part.  It shouldn't have gone that way, so I am discarding it as precedent) a Gm contradicting extablished precedent, should be corrected.  The correction might simply be something like, "Yeah, Gallin lost the tavern and all his possessions in a great fire last year.  He left town.  Mosewipe set up his wine tent in the space it used to be," but it is still a correction.
"You open the tavern door and seated at the three central tables are eleven Asmondeuses[sic]," says the first time GM, pausing as he thumbs through the Monster Manual.
"Uh, dude, there's only one Asmodeus," says player one.
The new GM pauses, an expression like a squirrel trying to pass an intact walnut out his sphincter on his face is replaced by a smile, "you thought there was only one."
"No, seriously.  There's one!  He's the supreme ruler of the nine Hells, unique, singular entity.  He's not part of a disastrous fertility drug abuse,"  player two chimes in.
"Hey, you said I could be GM, right.  And the GM is God, what he says goes.  That's what you always told me.  I am God and God says you see eleven Asmondeuses when you open the tavern door.  What do you do?"
What does letting him say that do to the game?  Should he have the right to say that?  To have it be true?  If not how can he be corrected given his authority?"

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419480My poor little head is spinning.  A lot of signifying seems to be going on in this thread rather than open discussion.  Is Ars Magica (fifth edition for arguments sake) as written not a role-playing game?  Troupe style play does not imply that a GM must bow to the will of other players, but it does make the authority of precedent very strong.  And precedent should be strong even in a game with only on individual helming the GM post.  Without the explanation (perhaps something like, "That was a pinheaded decision on my part.  It shouldn't have gone that way, so I am discarding it as precedent) a Gm contradicting extablished precedent, should be corrected.  The correction might simply be something like, "Yeah, Gallin lost the tavern and all his possessions in a great fire last year.  He left town.  Mosewipe set up his wine tent in the space it used to be," but it is still a correction.
"You open the tavern door and seated at the three central tables are eleven Asmondeuses[sic]," says the first time GM, pausing as he thumbs through the Monster Manual.
"Uh, dude, there's only one Asmodeus," says player one.
The new GM pauses, an expression like a squirrel trying to pass an intact walnut out his sphincter on his face is replaced by a smile, "you thought there was only one."
"No, seriously.  There's one!  He's the supreme ruler of the nine Hells, unique, singular entity.  He's not part of a disastrous fertility drug abuse,"  player two chimes in.
"Hey, you said I could be GM, right.  And the GM is God, what he says goes.  That's what you always told me.  I am God and God says you see eleven Asmondeuses when you open the tavern door.  What do you do?"
What does letting him say that do to the game?  Should he have the right to say that?  To have it be true?  If not how can he be corrected given his authority?"

He has every right to say that, it's 100% true and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it except tell him he's a jackass or tell him he can go ahead and GM all he wants, but he'll be GMing by himself.

You don't take a newbie GM and make the game good by throwing handcuffs on him.  You take a newbie GM and let him fuck up and realize he's a newbie GM, and then like everything else in life you suck at originally, he'll get better.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419481He has every right to say that, it's 100% true and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it except tell him he's a jackass or tell him he can go ahead and GM all he wants, but he'll be GMing by himself.

You don't take a newbie GM and make the game good by throwing handcuffs on him.  You take a newbie GM and let him fuck up and realize he's a newbie GM, and then like everything else in life you suck at originally, he'll get better.

No he won;t get any better because he said this
"Hey, you said I could be GM, right. And the GM is God, what he says goes. That's what you always told me. I am God and God says you see eleven Asmondeuses when you open the tavern door. What do you do?"
so he is an arsehole.

Benoist. I agree with you on WW games but can't see why you are so caught up on defining story games as not-RPGs. What is the point of doing that? How does it improved anyone's enjoyment of anything?

I kicked off the whole if it uses a fate point it can't be an RPG part of the debate to indicate just how stupid the distiction was.

BWA, in my games you would never walk into a bar in which the PCs describe the contents (unless they owned the bar in the game world) but PCs can create NPCs through use of fate points or 'contacts' or 'backgrounds' and they can do this in play but to keep it immersive they would give me (the GM) a precis of the NPC and how they know them and I would create and run them and the NPC would never appear in toto in the game world at that instant but would be created off camera so to speak this to me keeps immersion. But of course I respect your right to do that sort of crap and call it an RPG its just not an RPG I would enjoy.

There seem to be three schools of thought here. The Story Tellers (well jsut BWA really) the Tradditionalists (Pundit et al) and the rest of us. So I think most of us are Socialists or at least  center left. Personally, I would site Ferris Bueller..' A man should not believe in an -ism he shoudl believe in himself' .

Game rules cannot solve social issues. If your GM is a prick, handcuffing him with the rules will not make him stop being a prick.

I really believe people who want to limit GM authority because they are afraid of what the GM will do with that authority are passive-aggressive douche bags. And I don't think game systems can fix them, either.

If you have a problem with a GM or another player, then deal with it like an adult. Don't make bullshit "narrative control" rulesets to avoid having to talk to someone you ostensibly like enough to spend several hours engaging in a fun activity with.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419491Game rules cannot solve social issues. If your GM is a prick, handcuffing him with the rules will not make him stop being a prick.

I really believe people who want to limit GM authority because they are afraid of what the GM will do with that authority are passive-aggressive douche bags. And I don't think game systems can fix them, either.

If you have a problem with a GM or another player, then deal with it like an adult. Don't make bullshit "narrative control" rulesets to avoid having to talk to someone you ostensibly like enough to spend several hours engaging in a fun activity with.

You have to remember lots of peopel don;t game with peopel they like. They game with people who are running a game at the local store/club etc.

Now I am in your school better no gaming than a game with a bunch of dicks but no all peopel feel that way and I can see that restrictiing what a GM can do might aleviate some of these excesses. Not my cup of tea but I can see where it might work and perhaps more pertinently I can see that the resultant game woudl still be an RPG even if the GM had to dispense treasures in Parcels and have mosters of the correct CR etc etc ...

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419480What does letting him say that do to the game?

Makes it unpredictable?

QuoteShould he have the right to say that?  To have it be true?

Yes, that's what a GM does...define what is and isn't true in a gameworld.

QuoteIf not how can he be corrected given his authority?

By waiting until after the game and talking to him like an adult?

The ones who acted badly in your example were the players. The minute anyone said something like "but the game manual says this", I'd pick up the book, take it to the trash, and drop it in. Ruleslawyering is one of my pet peeves, because it's behaviour directly contrary to role-playing, that is disruptive to the entire group. As this is a new GM, I'd say in this case, however, the ruleslawyering was a form of bullying. Of course he reacted badly. and anyone can say that "god" speech was a dickish move, but the point was that he needed to establish authority before he could do his job. If a player can simply veto any decision he makes, there is no way he can GM.

If someone's a bad gm then don't play with them. If the players aren't giving a person, a new GM at that, the chance to even be the GM, then what's the point?

Quote from: CRKrueger;419477Maybe you're not really familiar with Storygames, but in many of them the story starts even before play as players decide what themes are going to be explored in the storyarc.  Then the play is broken down sometimes into literal Acts and Scenes, with players typically able to create complications or problems for their character to make the story more interesting, and get some mechanical benefit as a result.  There's a reason they call them Storygames, and it has very little to do with the in-character immersion of roleplaying.

Benoist and me were not talking about any of that. Just about shared narrative control. Which by itself doesn't mean, that there is a predecided story. Neither does pacing the game into scenes btw, but that is neither here nor there.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419491Game rules cannot solve social issues. If your GM is a prick, handcuffing him with the rules will not make him stop being a prick.

Rules can't correct all group conflicts, but they can set expectations for play.

Just like a rules-book saying "The GM has final authority" has set a precedent for play for 30+ years now.  It's no different than a book saying "A player may narrate X consequence under Y condition."  It's in the rules-book, it's part of the procedures for play.  GM-authority is a type of rule/establishment used to prevent social conflict.

QuoteI really believe people who want to limit GM authority because they are afraid of what the GM will do with that authority are passive-aggressive douche bags. And I don't think game systems can fix them, either.

I am the GM 90% of the time for my group.  Oh schnap!

QuoteIf you have a problem with a GM or another player, then deal with it like an adult. Don't make bullshit "narrative control" rulesets to avoid having to talk to someone you ostensibly like enough to spend several hours engaging in a fun activity with.

I do deal with it like an adult.  We've all been friends for, oh, say, 10 or so years now.  We never fight at the table.  That hasn't stopped me from sharing narrative authority over the game years before I ever started posting online or before I ever knew what the fuck the Forge was.  If something makes a game more enjoyable for my group, I do it.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419465According to the definition on wikipedia it is a roleplaying game and honestly, I see no reason to disagree.

Wikipedia? Seriously. What gets or doesn't get on wikipedia is totally selective. This site is bigger than the Forge, but theRPGsite doesn't have a wikipedia entry and the forge does. Why? Because Forge True Believer Swine went and wrote it. They probably edited the fuck out of anything pertaining to RPGs in order to promote the Forge. They're the most fanatical, so they get to make up the "truth" of wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia too, its a useful tool, but claiming that it can somehow serve as a tool to select Definitions, when anyone can go on wikipedia and change what's there and therefore gain control of said definitions, is absurd. Its like if I went to the wikipedia entry on Pipe Smoking, wrote that it makes your dick bigger, and then went around telling people "See? According to the definition on wikipedia pipe smoking makes your dick bigger".
For all I know, YOU went and put that definition on wikipedia.

RPGPundit

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419474That is indeed a very good idea. I don't mean to be snarky, but I suggest you do the same, which in the post I originally quoted, you didn't. You made a statement of fact, without explanation or reasoning. So, of course, my response to that was rather short, as you didn't give me a lot to work with and still haven't.
You have explained, that in your opinion story games are no real RPGs because shared narrative authority means, that somehow the story isn't the result of people playing the game. You will have to give a few more details to that, as that, to be blunt, doesn't make any sense to me, because as I said in my previous post, of course story is a result of play, where else should it come from?

Making a story is NOT the goal of an RPG.  Not a secondary goal, not a tertiary one. Any game where "making a story" is the goal, is NOT an RPG.

The goal of an RPG is to play characters in an emulated world. This is in fact directly ANTITHETICAL to the concept of "making a story" (collectively or otherwise).  The "narrative" is not supposed to be the purpose of the game; any story that comes out of a game is purely coincidental, a meaningless byproduct, which will usually be extremely crappy when viewed from a literary perspective (like many real-life things that happen, it will have no neat start or finish, characters of protagonist-like importance die off at inconvenient time for stupid reasons, hours can go by where nothing of note happens or where characters are just buying equipment; if it was a movie, it would suck ass).

Storygamers know all this, which is why they want to redefine the goal of the RPG, and the way it is played, and change essentially EVERYTHING about it, to make it suit what they want, which is to play games about telling stories rather than games about existing in imaginary worlds.  They have in fact created a new hobby, but they lack the confidence or the will or the brains to just admit that, and instead want to subvert the existing RPG hobby forcing it to change.

And that's what all this "narrative authority" bullshit is about.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419491Game rules cannot solve social issues. If your GM is a prick, handcuffing him with the rules will not make him stop being a prick.

I really believe people who want to limit GM authority because they are afraid of what the GM will do with that authority are passive-aggressive douche bags. And I don't think game systems can fix them, either.

If you have a problem with a GM or another player, then deal with it like an adult. Don't make bullshit "narrative control" rulesets to avoid having to talk to someone you ostensibly like enough to spend several hours engaging in a fun activity with.

Very well put, and in case I hadn't said it yet, Welcome to theRPGsite!

RPGPundit

I never claimed to use wikipedia as a tool to select all my definitions. I looked up the wikipedia definition. Looked it over and didn't disagree with it. Then I used it, because it is easily accessible.
And do you really think I went on wikipedia, changed the definition, faked a footnote, just to be able to point it out in an discussion here?

Quote from: RPGPundit;419517Making a story is NOT the goal of an RPG.  Not a secondary goal, not a tertiary one. Any game where "making a story" is the goal, is NOT an RPG.

That's what you say. I say this:

I play RPGs. I like how the common story of our characters develops in play. We make a story together through the act of playing the game. That's the hallmark of playing a RPG for me.

The second paragraph of the post of yours I quoted makes me believe that we play very different games. There is no hours of buying equipment in my games and my games are usually satsifactory from a story point of view. Must be a difference in gamemastering and playing style.

However that difference in style makes neither you, nor me wrong or right. We will just have to accept, that defining a roleplaying game narrowly instead of inclusively is an effort doomed to failure.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419492You have to remember lots of peopel don;t game with peopel they like. They game with people who are running a game at the local store/club etc.

Now I am in your school better no gaming than a game with a bunch of dicks but no all peopel feel that way and I can see that restrictiing what a GM can do might aleviate some of these excesses. Not my cup of tea but I can see where it might work and perhaps more pertinently I can see that the resultant game woudl still be an RPG even if the GM had to dispense treasures in Parcels and have mosters of the correct CR etc etc ...

Then you don't game with them, that's it.  

The problem is that there is a notion behind this "castrate the GM" movement, which is also fundamentally a movement based on resentment of genuine ability.  Like good little commies, the Swine resent the fact that they have no abilities or talents of note, so they want to hobble anyone else who does.  Thus, they sing the hymn of "We can ALL be GM!".
They base their arguments on the idea that there is no special trick or skill or craft to being a GM, that anyone can do it (if the rules of the game are made right) and even in fact that there's no need to have a gm, you can just have the rules and the players "create" the RPG.

The truth is quite different.  In a regular RPG, the fact of the matter is that it takes both talent and training to become a great GM. Some people aren't cut out for it from the start. Others have talent and need time to get better at it.
But it is a boldfaced LIE to suggest that "anyone can do it".   I mean, sure, anyone can do it but odds are "anyone" will FUCKING SUCK at it.

And all those GM-restricting rules out there? What they'll do is take a GM who FUCKING SUCKS and make him still FUCKING SUCK. At best, you'll have a guy with no talent for GMing but some talent for blind obedience, and he'll play the Rules Absolutely As Written, and create a completely awkward, unnatural, mediocre game that has poor if any value for immersion and not much better in emulation.
At worst, you'll have a mad incompetent powermonger who'll break all the rules anyways.
So then you're back at the original point: the ONLY real authority the player has is the authority to walk away.

Meanwhile, what do all of these Restrictive Rules do to the Good GMs? It destroys them. These kind of rules take horrible GMs and make them Still Horrible, it takes Good GMs and makes them useless; it takes Great GMs and makes them mediocre, and it takes Excellent GMs and makes them want to quit the hobby.
Take away the authority from a GM who is "good" or better, and you actually hobble his ability to be good or better. The very best case scenario with these kinds of rules is a totally mediocre game, because that's what the rules are made for, to INSURE a mediocre game experience; unfortunately, it does that by trying to make ALL game experiences mediocre.

Meanwhile, it ruins Emulation, and thus Immersion; which is why Forge Swine really love these kinds of rules so much, since Emulation and Immersion are what they see as their greatest enemy in making the hobby into what they want it to be.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;419519Very well put, and in case I hadn't said it yet, Welcome to theRPGsite!

RPGPundit

What, no welcome for me? :p

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419520I never claimed to use wikipedia as a tool to select all my definitions. I looked up the wikipedia definition. Looked it over and didn't disagree with it. Then I used it, because it is easily accessible.
And do you really think I went on wikipedia, changed the definition, faked a footnote, just to be able to point it out in an discussion here?

I've seen Forge Swine do far worse.

RPGPundit

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419522That's what you say. I say this:

I play RPGs. I like how the common story of our characters develops in play. We make a story together through the act of playing the game. That's the hallmark of playing a RPG for me.

The second paragraph of the post of yours I quoted makes me believe that we play very different games. There is no hours of buying equipment in my games and my games are usually satsifactory from a story point of view. Must be a difference in gamemastering and playing style.

However that difference in style makes neither you, nor me wrong or right. We will just have to accept, that defining a roleplaying game narrowly instead of inclusively is an effort doomed to failure.

Very nice, except you ARE in fact wrong.

It is not a "difference in style"; it is a difference in how well we are apparently able to perceive reality.  The very basic structure of the RPG (the regular RPG, the REAL RPG, not Forge games) is such that it would fail utterly at "creating story", trying to do so is like trying to use a hammer to weave a tapestry. YOU'RE USING THE WRONG FUCKING TOOL.

So yes, objectively speaking, if the above is your "definition" of an RPG, you are OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

RPGs aren't made for that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419524What, no welcome for me? :p

Whether or not you are welcome here will depend on whether you are either A) able to talk about regular RPGs in an enthusiastic and positive way or B) a Swine, but able to put up a decent argument that makes me flex my rhetorical muscles and gives me at least a bit of a workout before utterly wrecking you.

Thus far, your posts haven't filled me with confidence on either front.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;419529Whether or not you are welcome here will depend on whether you are either A) able to talk about regular RPGs in an enthusiastic and positive way or B) a Swine, but able to put up a decent argument that makes me flex my rhetorical muscles and gives me at least a bit of a workout before utterly wrecking you.

Uh, sure.
You've been doing that for fucking years now, "Pundit", tooting your own horn, trying to sell that "I know what 'real rpg' is" charade to people gullible enough to swallow that crap.

Your posting here a couple of weeks ago: that it was, of course, you who really "won" that fucking non-existent battle between the Forge and you -- another ploy to talk yourself up as The Proponent of real roleplaying.

I've GMed all kinds of rpgs (and I mean all kinds of, trad games, story games, LARPs, psychodramas, etc) for 26 years, and all are, indeed, roleplaying games.

Your provocative definition is just that, just a definition, just a "reality tunnel", as Robert Anton Wilson used to say.
But you're not above taking people's money when they buy your "Gnomemurdered" game... oh sure, it's supposed to be a "parody of story-games", right...

And now: Are you so deep into your own fucked-up "Pundit"  role that you can't even welcome people on this forum who think differently?

Oh, "rhetorical muscles" and "utterly wrecking you", yeah.:rolleyes:
Virtual Conan, Defender of The True Way of RPG, go!

Quote from: RPGPundit;419527Very nice, except you ARE in fact wrong.

It is not a "difference in style"; it is a difference in how well we are apparently able to perceive reality.  The very basic structure of the RPG (the regular RPG, the REAL RPG, not Forge games) is such that it would fail utterly at "creating story", trying to do so is like trying to use a hammer to weave a tapestry. YOU'RE USING THE WRONG FUCKING TOOL.

So yes, objectively speaking, if the above is your "definition" of an RPG, you are OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

RPGs aren't made for that.

RPGPundit

They work for me for "creating story", which I noted in one of my other posts.
So either I am lying or you are wrong. I've got no reason to lie, I only spoke up because my experience differs from what Benoist proposed.
Seems to me like you need to broaden your horizon a bit.

@objectively wrong: To prove someone objectively wrong, you have to actually construct a logical arguement, use some fact etc. You haven't done that. You cited you experiences. That is what we call an anecdote. You can use those to spicy these up, but not to actually construct an arguement.
For example would you say something like:
"RPGs aren't made for creating story"
Then you'd cite some RPGs, show based on factual evidence (again, not anecdotes) why they can't create story and go from there.

I give you a hint though. Save yourself the trouble trying. People create stories with RPGs every day and are not going to stop, no matter what you say.

@welcome: Please spare me the flexing of internet muscles. I am easily bored by juvenile posturing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419523Then you don't game with them, that's it.  

The problem is that there is a notion behind this "castrate the GM" movement, which is also fundamentally a movement based on resentment of genuine ability.  Like good little commies, the Swine resent the fact that they have no abilities or talents of note, so they want to hobble anyone else who does.  Thus, they sing the hymn of "We can ALL be GM!".
They base their arguments on the idea that there is no special trick or skill or craft to being a GM, that anyone can do it (if the rules of the game are made right) and even in fact that there's no need to have a gm, you can just have the rules and the players "create" the RPG.

The truth is quite different.  In a regular RPG, the fact of the matter is that it takes both talent and training to become a great GM. Some people aren't cut out for it from the start. Others have talent and need time to get better at it.
But it is a boldfaced LIE to suggest that "anyone can do it".   I mean, sure, anyone can do it but odds are "anyone" will FUCKING SUCK at it.

And all those GM-restricting rules out there? What they'll do is take a GM who FUCKING SUCKS and make him still FUCKING SUCK. At best, you'll have a guy with no talent for GMing but some talent for blind obedience, and he'll play the Rules Absolutely As Written, and create a completely awkward, unnatural, mediocre game that has poor if any value for immersion and not much better in emulation.
At worst, you'll have a mad incompetent powermonger who'll break all the rules anyways.
So then you're back at the original point: the ONLY real authority the player has is the authority to walk away.

Meanwhile, what do all of these Restrictive Rules do to the Good GMs? It destroys them. These kind of rules take horrible GMs and make them Still Horrible, it takes Good GMs and makes them useless; it takes Great GMs and makes them mediocre, and it takes Excellent GMs and makes them want to quit the hobby.
Take away the authority from a GM who is "good" or better, and you actually hobble his ability to be good or better. The very best case scenario with these kinds of rules is a totally mediocre game, because that's what the rules are made for, to INSURE a mediocre game experience; unfortunately, it does that by trying to make ALL game experiences mediocre.

Meanwhile, it ruins Emulation, and thus Immersion; which is why Forge Swine really love these kinds of rules so much, since Emulation and Immersion are what they see as their greatest enemy in making the hobby into what they want it to be.

RPGPundit

All that may be true .... but it still doesn't stop it being an RPG. Just because the GM sucks doesn't make it anything except a game with a sucky GM.

I actually think than an excellent GM will excel within whatever ruleset you lumber them and I certainly don't think that giving a nob-head carte-blanche to do as they wilt will empower them to be a better GM. I saw the same thing when I was teaching, people complaining that curriculm restrictions (UK education defines the curriculum of high schools centrally by governemnt edict) prevented teachers being Great when in fact the same teachers were great and the same teachers where shit either within or outside of those curriculum restrictions.

Now whether nob-heads are drawn to pretentious arsey games or not is another issue and I would expect a crowd playing a thespy angst ridden shared emotional journey game to be nobs just like I would expect someone that smokes a pipe because they think it will make their dick bigger to be a nob (irony! irony! honest).

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419533"RPGs aren't made for creating story"
Then you'd cite some RPGs, show based on factual evidence (again, not anecdotes) why they can't create story and go from there.

ad 1)
Historically, RPGs weren't made for creating story. Examples to the contrary have definitely been developed, and 99,9% of them because there was a huge misunderstanding of RPGs in the first place. So, as there has been a considerable number of people...NOW there are RPGs that are made for creating story.

QuotePeople  create stories with RPGs every day and are not going to stop, no matter  what you say.

ad 2)
That is just as factually correct as it is sad. Because it is destructive. "Storygaming" and "story creation" are a pox unto the hobby and the mind.
Blessed and seldom is he, who can do Storygaming and not be a) a douche to begin with b) influenced to only game crappily ever after. Epiphanies are becoming more numerous, though. Time will tell how many will return or stay away searching the new thing.

Norbert definitely is one of these seldom people.

On an unrelated note, I wanted to highlight that Pundit's angst re: GM-castration clouds and lessens one of the more salient points:

Namely, that without singular creator and monopolised secrets, there can be no adventure.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419491Game rules cannot solve social issues. If your GM is a prick, handcuffing him with the rules will not make him stop being a prick.

I really believe people who want to limit GM authority because they are afraid of what the GM will do with that authority are passive-aggressive douche bags. And I don't think game systems can fix them, either.

If you have a problem with a GM or another player, then deal with it like an adult. Don't make bullshit "narrative control" rulesets to avoid having to talk to someone you ostensibly like enough to spend several hours engaging in a fun activity with.

That's it. Rules don't fix people. If you have a problem with people, talk about it with people. Don't try to use rules to change the goalposts. That's just not gonna solve the problem. I agree!

Quote from: RPGPundit;419384For the record, you've misread my position on WW's games. They are definitely NOT "storygames" of the Forge kind.  They are "story-based gaming", that is WW's own term for the type of game they're supposed to be, but this is really an ideology of RPGs.  White Wolf games ARE real RPGs, unlike Forge games which are not.  "Story-based" games, as opposed to storygames, are really just regular RPGs with a very heavy reliance on the idea that the GM is supposed to be the "storyteller" who railroads cheerleader-PCs through a grand tale of his crafting; or more often, through a grand tale of WW's crafting with tons of metaplot. That certainly makes them crappy games, and in combination with their pretentiousness makes them Swine games, but it doesn't make them "Storygames".

Gotcha (not that I agree with your characterisation of WW games as such - at least in terms of how they play in practice - but just trying to understand your point of view).

But hypothetically if I were to write a roleplaying game and it had these rules:-

1. the GM shall always relentlessly railroad the players into whatever he thinks is cool
2. the players shall not argue with it
3. the players may make cosmetic decisions about what their characters would do

... then that would be so railroaded that the players would have no chance of taking ownership of their characters, of developing a stake in them. So even if the game were 100% super believable and suspension of disbelief could be taken for granted, and even if the GM engaged descriptively with the setting to almost poetic effect, it still wouldn't offer the players any chance for immersive roleplay meaning roleplay while immersed in their characters' viewpoint, because they wouldn't be effectively stepping into their characters' shoes to do anything in particular. They wouldn't really be roleplaying their characters. They would just be an audience with no signficant decisions to make.

And that would be a game, in a manner of speaking, centred around a story. The GM's story. So, it would be a story-game, in just the same way as any game centred on story which does not allow for (particularly much) immersive roleplay. And so, it would be a storygame, right?

It's just that even on your view of WW stuff, it's not QUITE that heavily railroaded as to totally eclipse the immersive RPG elements - it's just that on your view it significantly diminishes them, and it's also (on your view) utterly pretentious. Am I in the right ballpark?

Quote from: jibbajibba;419485Benoist. I agree with you on WW games but can't see why you are so caught up on defining story games as not-RPGs. What is the point of doing that? How does it improved anyone's enjoyment of anything?

Hey there, Jibba! Well first, I define role playing games that way because that's what they are to me. It's not rhetorical gymnastics on my part: I really do believe those definitions in my mind. I do feel that when I am engaging in authorial modifications of the world outside of my character, as a player, I am starting to play something else. Something that is not a role playing game. So I call it what I think is appropriate: a story game, because that's in effect what the game does: collaborative story telling.

Which again, to me, is not what a role playing game does.

So then, I love role playing games, and don't like story games that much. These are my tastes. So I want to keep traditional role playing games going, and am tired of seeing all kinds of story-gaming mechanics creep their way into my favorite games. Enough is enough.

When you've got all the big kids on the RPG block playing with narrative mechanics, whether they are cards like Paizo's, or WotC's now, I get annoyed, and voice my concerns. After, people are free to dismiss them, but hey, I'm voicing them anyway.

Thing is, there is no RPG-theory, it is always RPG-philosophy. And the philosophy at odds with your own is philosophically, read FUNDAMENTALLY, wrong.

Quote from: Settembrini;419541Namely, that without singular creator and monopolised secrets, there can be no adventure.

I love that. That's an excellent quote.

It also shows to me why story games will stay popular. People I know in real life who like to story game say things like, "well, you are just making it up anyway. what's the difference?" They aren't capable of enjoying an adventure. They are like those people who go to a movie, just to ruin it for other people by talking the whole time (I can always count on them for a spoiler).

Quote from: Benoist;419547Hey there, Jibba! Well first, I define role playing games that way because that's what they are to me. It's not rhetorical gymnastics on my part: I really do believe those definitions in my mind. I do feel that when I am engaging in authorial modifications of the world outside of my character, as a player, I am starting to play something else. Something that is not a role playing game. So I call it what I think is appropriate: a story game, because that's in effect what the game does: collaborative story telling.

Which again, to me, is not what a role playing game does.

So then, I love role playing games, and don't like story games that much. These are my tastes. So I want to keep traditional role playing games going, and am tired of seeing all kinds of story-gaming mechanics creep their way into my favorite games. Enough is enough.

When you've got all the big kids on the RPG block playing with narrative mechanics, whether they are cards like Paizo's, or WotC's now, I get annoyed, and voice my concerns. After, people are free to dismiss them, but hey, I'm voicing them anyway.

But how much of a story-game mechanic is too much for you? James Bond Hero points, skills checks that can 'spawn' NPCs, background points you can spend at chargen to create property, people, places, stuff etc etc . All of that to me is part of the same continum and while I might hate the idea of the PC determining the entire contents of a bar I am quite happy to have them create a bar 'off-camera' for a backgrund point or whatever and it would be hypocritical of me therefore to say what I like is an RPG and what I don't like is a story game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419517Making a story is NOT the goal of an RPG.  Not a secondary goal, not a tertiary one. Any game where "making a story" is the goal, is NOT an RPG.

The goal of an RPG is to play characters in an emulated world. This is in fact directly ANTITHETICAL to the concept of "making a story" (collectively or otherwise).  The "narrative" is not supposed to be the purpose of the game; any story that comes out of a game is purely coincidental, a meaningless byproduct, which will usually be extremely crappy when viewed from a literary perspective (like many real-life things that happen, it will have no neat start or finish, characters of protagonist-like importance die off at inconvenient time for stupid reasons, hours can go by where nothing of note happens or where characters are just buying equipment; if it was a movie, it would suck ass).

Storygamers know all this, which is why they want to redefine the goal of the RPG, and the way it is played, and change essentially EVERYTHING about it, to make it suit what they want, which is to play games about telling stories rather than games about existing in imaginary worlds.  They have in fact created a new hobby, but they lack the confidence or the will or the brains to just admit that, and instead want to subvert the existing RPG hobby forcing it to change.

And that's what all this "narrative authority" bullshit is about.

RPGPundit

Complete agreement on my part. That's what I'm trying to say in other words.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419550But how much of a story-game mechanic is too much for you? James Bond Hero points, skills checks that can 'spawn' NPCs, background points you can spend at chargen to create property, people, places, stuff etc etc . All of that to me is part of the same continum and while I might hate the idea of the PC determining the entire contents of a bar I am quite happy to have them create a bar 'off-camera' for a backgrund point or whatever and it would be hypocritical of me therefore to say what I like is an RPG and what I don't like is a story game.

Personally, I hate all of that kind of crap. I barely enjoy having players create background with points, and only tolerate it because my players ask me before taking something.

Quote from: Omnifray;419546Gotcha (not that I agree with your characterisation of WW games as such - at least in terms of how they play in practice - but just trying to understand your point of view).

But hypothetically if I were to write a roleplaying game and it had these rules:-

1. the GM shall always relentlessly railroad the players into whatever he thinks is cool
2. the players shall not argue with it
3. the players may make cosmetic decisions about what their characters would do

... then that would be so railroaded that the players would have no chance of taking ownership of their characters, of developing a stake in them. So even if the game were 100% super believable and suspension of disbelief could be taken for granted, and even if the GM engaged descriptively with the setting to almost poetic effect, it still wouldn't offer the players any chance for immersive roleplay meaning roleplay while immersed in their characters' viewpoint, because they wouldn't be effectively stepping into their characters' shoes to do anything in particular. They wouldn't really be roleplaying their characters. They would just be an audience with no signficant decisions to make.

And that would be a game, in a manner of speaking, centred around a story. The GM's story. So, it would be a story-game, in just the same way as any game centred on story which does not allow for (particularly much) immersive roleplay. And so, it would be a storygame, right?

It's just that even on your view of WW stuff, it's not QUITE that heavily railroaded as to totally eclipse the immersive RPG elements - it's just that on your view it significantly diminishes them, and it's also (on your view) utterly pretentious. Am I in the right ballpark?

That's how the Exalted game I played in for 6 months was. It was definitely an RPG. It just sucks a bit of dick, and their were odd things, like one players outrageous homicidal rage as he bucked the rails.

Adventure RPGs are a pretty solid structure, they can take some abuse. A sub-creator that has control over a part of creation with no relevance to the rest or the adventure's secrets also could just as well not exist.

The Storygaming rubber hits the road at the instance the sub-creator wants to influence relevant parts of the creation or have secrets outside of of the roles he was assigned control over in the first place.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419550But how much of a story-game mechanic is too much for you? James Bond Hero points

I already cringe when I see a game has action/hero points. I cringed when I saw them in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, for instance. Still, some uses for them are alright, others are just not right. Depends on particular situations, in practice.

Quoteskills checks that can 'spawn' NPCs

I wouldn't use that.

Quotebackground points you can spend at chargen to create property, people, places, stuff etc etc .

That's chargen. This is background information before the game begins. That's different.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419550All of that to me is part of the same continum and while I might hate the idea of the PC determining the entire contents of a bar I am quite happy to have them create a bar 'off-camera' for a backgrund point or whatever and it would be hypocritical of me therefore to say what I like is an RPG and what I don't like is a story game.

Nope. To me, some of these elements you're talking about are not story-gaming per se. Let's say a character in D&D uses his hard-earned gold pieces to build himself a tavern, and then hires some people to work there and so on. I will let the player make the maps of the place, create NPCs and so on, if he wants to. That's a big part of the fun of a character becoming part of the world. But this is all happening outside of the actual game play. Off camera. Between sessions. I would not let a player during the game spawn an NPC because he wants to. Why? Because then the emulation stops. The player is looking at the game from an author's standpoint, not a character's. That is not role playing, to me.

Background dots in WW dots work pretty much the same way, to me. In the off chance I would make people roll their backgrounds during the game, this would be no different than rolling say, your Henchman's Loyalty. These are all acceptable things to me, because they are part of the emulation of the game world, and they fundamentally do not break immersion.

Really, it's not rocket science, to me. You might not agree on the specifics of the differences, but people claiming they do not understand what I mean I think are being intellectually dishonest. They perfectly see what I mean. They just don't have the balls to go about it in other ways than just pretending they don't understand.

Meaningful decisionmaking, or at least the trust in the possibility of such decisionmaking for the assigned agents is crucial for the amount of intellectual immersion that is experienced.

Emotional immersion is a bit different and there are countless examples of
emotional immersion techniques that triumph over reason.

Good when you can combine them, but they are sometimes at odds. Obviously, good people always take the first over the latter.

Quote from: BWA;419459... Now, in a creative group, someone is going to fill the bland empty fictional space of "a tavern" with some description. ...

Let's say that a player says "Oh, yeah, this is Mad Mort's Wayhouse. He's a big, fat mercenary who hates dwarves with a passion." ...

Does this sound like something that might happen at your table?

Let's suppose literally this exact thing happens in a game I'm running. Except that it's not that I had no idea what sort of a tavern it was going to be, it's just that I hadn't quite formulated or articulated my idea yet. Maybe because I was interrupted when the big-mouthed player jumped in.

Inside, I, as GM, might possibly thinking "what the fuck - are you trying to do my job for me here? if you wanted to be the GM why didn't you offer to run your own game you poxy cunt? what am I supposed to be doing if you're doing all the creative stuff?"

This has never happened with any of my regular gamers who I to some reasonable degree share some level of established expectations with about how the game will run. (What modern academia is pleased to call a social contact, because it can't use ordinary plain English.)

Something similar to a lesser degree has probably happened to me running a game at a convention involving players I had only just met that day for the first time ever. My response was probably to let it go (unless it was ruinous of the adventure I had in mind) because I didn't want to make the person feel small or stifle their participation in the game and because I didn't want to come across as a giant ass-hat.

If one of my regular players who I knew rather better did it I would probably say - "er, hang on, I was just getting to the description of the tavern if that's OK".

What I definitely would tolerate from a player though would be a more deferential question such as:- "Does it look like the sort of wayhouse which some big fat dwarf-hating mercenary might own?"  - because that's phrased in such a way that it leaves the creative flow seamlessly in my hands, uninterrupted. And if they then said "You could call him Mad Mort or something," I might be OK with that.

I would actually be very happy if the elf's player said "May I please, subject to your veto as GM, spend a Fate Point for the tavern owner to be a big fat dwarf-hating mercenary?", although I would be happier still if he did it in a secret written note which only he and I were privy too. That would be cool. But I wouldn't want some asshole doing that ALL THE FRICKIN TIME. Just once or twice in a session would be great.

Although I think that the GM should always have the final say - subject to broad limits of social acceptability (e.g. no foal-raping Nazi NPCs please, especially if the GM describes their activities in, well, any kind of detail at all), - and consider it to be a temerity for a player in the immersive kind of game that I like to run to try to arrogate that power to themselves, there was a time several years ago when a GM announced to me (after I offered a few vague plot-seed ideas after a session - not during one - as catalysts for his creativity) that he never accepted plot ideas from players, I just thought he was the biggest twatface going. I would never try to do his job for him and force specific plot on him. But what the fuck is the problem with me sharing my ideas with him after the session? I'm not expecting him to implement the exact thing I said, but it might set his train of thought going in a new direction and it might be just the catalyst he needs to come up with some great new idea of his own.

This was the same guy who wouldn't let me play the ONE PARTICULAR archetype I desperately wanted to play coming back to the hobby after a bit of a break from tabletop roleplay, simply because someone else in the party was playing a character of that archetype and he didn't think it would fit the setting. It was a fairly standard fantasy setting and a fairly standard archetype which would have been uncommon, but there could certainly be more than one in the whole world. Totally offensive twattery from him.

What drives people to act like that???

Quote from: Benoist;419557I already cringe when I see a game has action/hero points. I cringed when I saw them in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, for instance. Still, some uses for them are alright, others are just not right. Depends on particular situations, in practice.


I wouldn't use that.


That's chargen. This is background information before the game begins. That's different.


Nope. To me, some of these elements you're talking about are not story-gaming per se. Let's say a character in D&D uses his hard-earned gold pieces to build himself a tavern, and then hires some people to work there and so on. I will let the player make the maps of the place, create NPCs and so on, if he wants to. That's a big part of the fun of a character becoming part of the world. But this is all happening outside of the actual game play. Off camera. Between sessions. I would not let a player during the game spawn an NPC because he wants to. Why? Because then the emulation stops. The player is looking at the game from an author's standpoint, not a character's. That is not role playing, to me.

Background dots in WW dots work pretty much the same way, to me. In the off chance I would make people roll their backgrounds during the game, this would be no different than rolling say, your Henchman's Loyalty. These are all acceptable things to me, because they are part of the emulation of the game world, and they fundamentally do not break immersion.

Really, it's not rocket science, to me. You might not agree on the specifics of the differences, but people claiming they do not understand what I mean I think are being intellectually dishonest. They perfectly see what I mean. They just don't have the balls to go about it in other ways than just pretending they don't understand.

No I think we understand but I think that is the first time you have been as explicit.

If you take a game with a skill that can generate NPCs. This is somethign you can do in the old FGU games (all RPGS in a very trad way). The subsulture skills have an effect which is that you can use them to know someone who knows a thing and can help you. So you might use Law-enforcement subculture to know someone who can run a plate for your PI character, now at its simplest you are just getitng information, however you can use it to make these characters bigger. The in character explanation is that you knew these guys back when you were a cop or a lawyer or a pop star or whatever, because the 20 minutes you spent makign your Character up didn't include a list of all the people that your character knew and what they did.
Now to me that is entirely immersive.
Example, Do I know anyone in the Narroni gang, make a crim-subculture roll, yeah 3 poitns under. Okay yeah you know a guy, minor member of the gang. Can I make him a driver? Yeah that works. Nicky? sure Nicky he's a driver with the gang. I know him through my time in SingSing, that work. Sure.
 So toally immersive just building on elements already in the PCs history. A new NPC has been spawned. An advantage for the PCs as it gives them a new in into the plot game whatever.

Now to me that is a standard piece of play. I suspect that is pretty standard for about 90% of roleplayers. There is a world, the GM has 'authority' but as a player I can add things to the world and the GM  will generally accept them although ownership of them has now passed to the GM.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419472After all, even when you are sharing narrative authority, you are still playing a game, the story always comes afterwards and is a product of the process of playing, because how on earth would there already be a story before you play?

The Forge has come up with this classification of Story First, Story After and Story Now! Obviously, Story Now! is meant to be the one you're supposed to love, hence the sexier-sounding name for that compared to the others (complete with exclamation mark).

I guess that Story First could include extensive metaplot pre-written and railroaded, a la WW according to the Gospel of Pundit [I am not saying that this is how WW games actually go, but how Pundit says they are intended].

Story After is your typical immersive RPG where the "story" (or sequence of events unfolding in the game, if you prefer) emerges through play.

Story Now! is where the participants are actively pushing the game in the direction of a particular kind of story during play. This isn't really something the GM would do on his own, because if it were, why wouldn't he just go the whole hog and do it as Story First? A planned story is better than one you make up on the spot. But if you are doing it collectively obviously the story only comes to life as you actually collaborate, and that's what Shared Narrative Authority storygaming is all about.

Continued below...

Quote from: DominikSchwager;419472---snip---

Continued from previous post...

Of course this process of Story Now! inherently involves players stepping away from their characters' natural perspective to push the "story" in particular kinds of direction, adopting what Ron Edwards would call Author Stance or Director Stance or Pawn Stance (depending on the precise manner of this endeavour), and dropping out of what he would call Actor Stance. What Forgite theory doesn't explain is that the very process of dropping out of this "Actor Stance" inherently detracts from your immersion in the character's viewpoint at the time when you are doing it (more or less by definition) but also potentially from your immersion in your character's viewpoint going forward, and in the game-world as a whole.

Forge theory fails to engage with this because although it does a reasonable job of modelling externally observable behaviours (not that I agree with everything it says about them by any stretch of the imagination) - namely in its identification of the fact that some players prefer believable play, some players prefer challenge and some players like poignant themes (this is a very incomplete list to begin with of course), it is a total fuck-up when it comes to insight into internalised experience. Ron Edwards is a scientist. He is presumably used to modelling things which are empirically observable using the scientific method. That's great for science. But roleplay is a human activity. We are not just rats in a laboratory to be observed and modelled. We are simultaneously the rats and the scientist observing them. In other words, Ron Edwards is both the scientist, and the laboratory rat in his own experiment (not suggesting he's a rat in any other way). So he has direct access to his own internalised perspectives and experiences. If you're trying to understand the purpose and internal experience of human endeavour, you have to have reference to those internalised perspectives, either directly, or by empathising with other people.

Scientists might say that it is not scientifically valid to do so and they are right. But it is still legitimate to do so, just not scientific. In fact, it is necessary. And it works, or can work, because although subjective preferences are, well, subjective, we are all human, we are all fundamentally quite similar, and a lot of our individual subjective experiences are bound to be fairly similar to the next man's. So you draw on empathy with others around you, and your own personal internalised experience and perspective, to understand the meaning and purpose of the activity from the point of view of the subject in your experiment (the subjective point of view).

Unfortunately, no scientific training is available for this. This kind of analysis lies squarely in the field of arts and humanities. When a scientist comes to this sort of endeavour, he may be ill-prepared.

Of course, I don't know what other training Ron Edwards has. For all I know he might be a Nobel Prize-winning poet, artist and sculptor. His plays may put Shakespeare to shame, and his stories may outshine Dickens. I also don't know how empathic he is generally speaking. I expect he has a wide circle of friends and a high level of social skill, interpersonal skill and charm.

But looking at the evidence, the Forgite claim that there is quite possibly no such thing as Immersion, and the equally spurious notion that a game cannot be optimally enjoyable if it combines a focus on challenge, a focus on poignant themes and a focus on believability, are the kind of totally craptacular fuck-uppery which really suggest that this may be where the problem lies.

And hey presto we can begin to understand the "Conspiracy" Pundit hates so much. It's not a conspiracy at all. It's just totally craptacular fuck-uppery which comes from a woeful failure to empathise with gamers generally. I'm not saying Ron Edwards has no ability at empathy in general. Just that Forge Theory does not reflect any evidence of a serious empathic endeavour.

Add to the mix the fact that it's wrapped up in extremely articulate scientific language by an exceptionally intelligent and vocal advocate of a particular theoretical position who wins over many of the people who care about these things, and you have a combustible mix.

Quote from: Settembrini;419541On an unrelated note, I wanted to highlight that Pundit's angst re: GM-castration clouds and lessens one of the more salient points:

Namely, that without singular creator and monopolised secrets, there can be no adventure.

Wow Sett made sense in a language I can understand! That's something!

I'm puzzled by story-game designers trying to create mystery games. It seems impossible to design a game that both create story collaboratively and enables players to reveal a mystery. "Randomly created mystery on the fly" isn't going to satisfy gamers who want to prove their wits and deductive powers either. If there's no secret and no one to say "you're warming up... nope getting cold" then players aren't going to solve any mystery.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419485No he won;t get any better because he said this
"Hey, you said I could be GM, right. And the GM is God, what he says goes. That's what you always told me. I am God and God says you see eleven Asmondeuses when you open the tavern door. What do you do?"
so he is an arsehole.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I could run a really cool game which started with the players walking into a tavern and finding 11 Asmodeuses sitting at the table playing poker.

But then again, maybe I'm an arsehole?

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419491I really believe people who want to limit GM authority because they are afraid of what the GM will do with that authority are passive-aggressive douche bags. And I don't think game systems can fix them, either.

Totally. But fear of what the GM will do with GM authority is not the only reason some people might have for wanting to limit GM authority.

They might want to big-up the Game in Role-Playing Game.

They might want to make the game more colourful by getting the players' ideas on-board.

Doesn't change the fact that Shared Narrative Authority is a markedly inferior way of gaming (though not a disastrously inferior one), I'm just trying to be fair-minded about it.

boulet, Bingo!

You are one step away from seeing it.

Let me take you by the hand:

The mystery, it is just window dressing. Because, you know, TV and Comic book adventures RILLY are about the human condition! And that is the Forge-conjecture that even approaches conspiracy-like actions, as they are very secretive in their games about that.
So, not the detectives or the perpetrators actions matter. But the "cathartic process" of revealing some of your/your characters inner life through the process of story creation against the painted canvas of the Mystery.

The murderer is only interesting as a vehicle to talk about a bad childhood, if you will. And sadly, there is enough crap going on in US-pop-culture (the middle brow variety), that reinforces this idea.

ADD: Euro-crime-mysteries on TV and books otoh are mostly vehicles for exploration of cultures, subcultures and geographic regions, these days.

Well, talking about tragedy and our feelings IS interesting. I watch the walking dead, and all it is, is a zombie background for the interplay of a bunch of modern cavemen. People love it. I love it.

I think it is odd, at least a little, to RP that way. Whatever though.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419517Making a story is NOT the goal of an RPG.  Not a secondary goal, not a tertiary one. Any game where "making a story" is the goal, is NOT an RPG.

The goal of an RPG is to play characters in an emulated world. This is in fact directly ANTITHETICAL to the concept of "making a story" (collectively or otherwise).  The "narrative" is not supposed to be the purpose of the game; any story that comes out of a game is purely coincidental, a meaningless byproduct, which will usually be extremely crappy when viewed from a literary perspective (like many real-life things that happen, it will have no neat start or finish, characters of protagonist-like importance die off at inconvenient time for stupid reasons, hours can go by where nothing of note happens or where characters are just buying equipment; if it was a movie, it would suck ass).

Storygamers know all this, which is why they want to redefine the goal of the RPG, and the way it is played, and change essentially EVERYTHING about it, to make it suit what they want, which is to play games about telling stories rather than games about existing in imaginary worlds.  They have in fact created a new hobby, but they lack the confidence or the will or the brains to just admit that, and instead want to subvert the existing RPG hobby forcing it to change.

And that's what all this "narrative authority" bullshit is about.

RPGPundit

I'm sorry, but I had to register because of this post.

This is the single dumbest thing I've ever seen posted about gaming. Ever.

I mean, how can you honestly say that RPGs aren't about stories or narratives?

Can you tell me what happened in your game? Then guess what? That's a story!

Are things happening one after the other? Then guess what? That's a narrative!

Are the players actually doing things and interacting with setting elements? Then guess what? They're collaborating in the story!

I mean, good lord, if you don't have a story or narrative or anything, when what do you do in your games? Sit there and stare at each other for four hours?

RPGs are about stories, and always have been, no matter how much you want to stick your fingers in your go "lalalalala" or try to say that the majority of gamers don't want that despite the fact that any other.

Now of course y'all can sit there and point fingers and call me "troll" or "swine" or whatever, but it doesn't matter. I'll continue to point back and laugh at the immense level of self-delusion you guys have, and at the hate you send to people who made the mistake of playing games to tell awesome stories with their friends. And for every iota of hate you send my way, I'll work that much harder to make my stories more fun for my players, and to improve my narratives. Your hate will only make me stronger, and the Tyranny of Fun will grow unabated.


I have beaten your point to my satisfaction, RPGPundit. Therefore I claim victory over you. I win, and that's all there is to it. That's how this works, right? I can just declare it like you did?

Quote from: FunTyrant;419573I mean, how can you honestly say that RPGs aren't about stories or narratives?

Think. That'll help. :)

Quote from: Omnifray;419569Actually, I'm pretty sure I could run a really cool game which started with the players walking into a tavern and finding 11 Asmodeuses sitting at the table playing poker.

But then again, maybe I'm an arsehole?

I was actually refering to the "And the GM is God, what he says goes. That's what you always told me. I am God and God says you..."
but whatever floats your boat.

FunTyrant is raping the word "story", thereby communication is impossible.

Using his thought model, RPGs are RILLY about creating heat, as people sit around emanating it. Or creating sentences, because sentences are uttered without end. Or creating wind with the mouth, or reading books, because the actual meeting is just a catalyst for people RILLY reading books...

ad nauseam.

Quote from: Benoist;419574Think. That'll help. :)

I did. I think about RPGs all the time. I think about the stories I want to tell, or the stories I've told in games. They may not have all been deep or complex, but they were still stories. Stuff happened in a plot with characters.

Explain to me how any game you ran didn't have a story or narrative. Don't give a stupid little coy non-answer, actually defend your stance.

Quote from: Settembrini;419541... Blessed and seldom is he, who can do Storygaming and not be a) a douche to begin with b) influenced to only game crappily ever after. ...

I played Montsegur 1244 and went back to gaming exactly the same way as I had before - immersively. Does that make me blessed and seldom, or are you exaggerating the "brain-damage" (to borrow a Forgite term) which storygaming does to the immersive roleplayer?

Oh wait... you can invoke the douchebag caveat I guess...

Quote... without ... monopolised secrets, there can be no adventure.

Hail the True Believer! Mystery, suspense, intrigue and discovery are key experiences of immersive roleplay. The experience of horror and fear also grow best in the fertile soil of monopolised secrets. Sign up and join the priesthood, brother. :-D

Footnote:- Of course you could have several GMs for a large group, but as long as they are not the players, it's the same principle. Also, you can have adventure without monopolised secrets, but it's never going to provide more than the excitement of challenge and the poignancy of thematic dilemmas.

Quote from: Settembrini;419576FunTyrant is raping the word "story", thereby communication is impossible.

Using his thought model, RPGs are RILLY about creating heat, as people sit around emanating it. Or creating sentences, because sentences are uttered without end. Or creating wind with the mouth, or reading books, because the actual meeting is just a catalyst for people RILLY reading books...

ad nauseam.

Raping the word "story"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

And your "counterpoint" makes no sense whatsoever. How is people crating a narrative together like sharing heat? That doesn't even make any sense in any sane way. You can't disprove my point my making an unrelated analogy.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419573I mean, how can you honestly say that RPGs aren't about stories or narratives?

My trip to the beach/mountains/whatever last weekend was not a story in-and-of-itself.  I created a story/narrative after-the-fact when I told my friends about it.

Also, the use of the term "story" by White-Wolf, story-gamers, and a majority of the people who see it as a goal for gaming use the term to refer to a compelling narrative with lots of drama.  In otherwords, tension and conflict are needed to produce the sort of story these games supposedly try to achieve.  That doesn't automatically happen if your goal isn't to create a story or drama, but to navigate your avatar through an imaginary world.  Not all RPGs involve stories or narratives.

And this is coming from someone who doesn't agree with Pundit, and who is a borderline "story-gamer."

Quote from: jibbajibba;419550...background points you can spend at chargen to create property, people, places, stuff etc etc . ...

Not in any meaningful sense part of the continuum of storygame mechanics at all IMHO, simply because you are not roleplaying immersively when you design your character (except possibly if it uses an extensive CharGen system like Traveller's which kind of involves playing out your character's previous life-history in outline prior to the official start of play). Your immersive roleplay is not interrupted to think about story-creation because your immersive roleplay hasn't actually started. It's no worse than choosing your character class on the basis that you think the party needs a cleric.

You could counter my point by saying that you can be starting to immerse yourself in the character's viewpoint during CharGen, but c'mon, you're hardly roleplaying at that stage. You're just getting ready to roleplay. Who cares what process you do to get set up for the roleplay? It's the roleplay which matters.

Quote from: Cranewings;419555That's how the Exalted game I played in for 6 months was. It was definitely an RPG. It just sucks a bit of dick, and their were odd things, like one players outrageous homicidal rage as he bucked the rails.

Did it come very, very close to breaking your spirit as an immersive roleplayer? Did the relentless railroading lead to the homicidal rage, and was that homicidal rage a real-world event?? Presumably not leading to ACTUAL homicide...

Quote from: Omnifray;419578I played Montsegur 1244 and went back to gaming exactly the same way as I had before - immersively. Does that make me blessed and seldom, or are you exaggerating the "brain-damage" (to borrow a Forgite term) which storygaming does to the immersive roleplayer?

Oh wait... you can invoke the douchebag caveat I guess...

I played more Storygames than you apparently, out of journalistic interest.
The people that are crappified are those who buy into the whole thing and wonder where everybody went. Like CR Nixon, just listen to his podcast...
I think you know exactly what I meant. Or are you some kind of totalitarian algebraic thinker?

But I do remember you being a douchebag of some sorts. In any case, with anything related to culture, there is no algebra. And there is no brain damage.

When I start a sentence with "People who watch Glenn Beck..." it is obvious that a critical watching is not alluded to. Dwell on that, code-boy.

Quote from: Benoist;419557Background dots in WW dots work pretty much the same way, to me. In the off chance I would make people roll their backgrounds during the game, this would be no different than rolling say, your Henchman's Loyalty. These are all acceptable things to me, because they are part of the emulation of the game world, and they fundamentally do not break immersion.

I fucking hate background dots in WW bought for xp or creation dots at CharGen meaning Allies, Contacts, Retainer, Status etc. But I'm not sure it has anything to do with immersion v. narrative control. I don't like the way better Allies and Contacts are equated with Strength and Dexterity. Either it strait-jackets the ST's (for which read GM's for the uninitiated) freedom to run the game naturally (because these social circumstances etc. are sacrosanct), or it has a fundamental tendency towards being poorly balanced (because it's so easy to lose the Allies, Contacts etc. you've bought with xp which could have bought you permastats, or because the Merit Dots in these things are fundamentally undercosted to begin with - which is in fact IMHO YMMV the case), or it leads to munchkinistic stat-wankery like deliberately losing Allies so the ST will refund your wasted xp, and weirdnesses like getting more xp just because you had the misfortune to fall out of touch with your Contacts.

The mechanic which lets you buy these things after play has started using xp is even worse. It means that you get less xp to spend on permastats if you play effectively and build up Allies, Contacts etc. It incentivises people to play ineffectively. It's total statwank. Also, more fundamentally, building up Allies, Contacts etc. is a goldmine of potentially interesting roleplay. Why the fuck turn it into an XP-spending meat market of NPC-buying???

I'm not saying that a little bit of direct resource-spending on NPCs after play has started is necessarily ruinous of the game. But I would think of it as something which happens at MAJOR faultlines in the game, say, transition between one whole campaign and the next (involving the same characters but with the game effectively re-started with everyone higher level, better off etc.)

All this said, in my own games I let people pre-buy wealth, status etc. at CharGen BUT NOT USING THE SAME RESOURCE POOL AS PERMASTATS. I balance it off against what are in essence fate points. I really think it's a super-neat dividing line, as long as you can get the fate points into the game without compromising immersion. My original solution was to have the GM in ultimate control of this particular kind of fate points even for the PCs, using them on your behalf. One guy at a con objected because he thought it made the game adversarial. That's not the intention, nor when I run it the effect. The point isn't for the GM to act like a cock, it's for him to help you, in a relatively finite way, but in a way you can't predict. In my next game I think it will be GM's choice whether the GM controls the Fate resource, but if he doesn't, the players can have the choice to hand back control of the Fate resource to him either from time to time, or globally. After all, the GM can use it more effectively than the players can. He knows his GM secrets.

I devised this system years ago but having recently read the Amber entry on Wikipedia I notice that spare character points (basically xp) in Amber become Good Stuff and overspends become Bad Stuff. Interesting parallel, except of course the Amber cp are used for permastats.

Quote from: Peregrin;419580My trip to the beach/mountains/whatever last weekend was not a story in-and-of-itself.  I created a story/narrative after-the-fact when I told my friends about it.

I don't see how it matters when the story was told, it's still a story. Things happened; there's no quantum cut-off point where something "starts" being a story where it wasn't before.

QuoteAlso, the use of the term "story" by White-Wolf, story-gamers, and a majority of the people who see it as a goal for gaming use the term to refer to a compelling narrative with lots of drama.  In otherwords, tension and conflict are needed to produce the sort of story these games supposedly try to achieve.  That doesn't automatically happen if your goal isn't to create a story or drama, but to navigate your avatar through an imaginary world.  Not all RPGs involve stories or narratives.

And this is coming from someone who doesn't agree with Pundit, and who is a borderline "story-gamer."

So, wait...you don't want a game with drama or conflict or a compelling narrative? Then, quite frankly, what's the bloody point? Just having your character wandering aimlessly through a campaign world just seems so...pointless and not-fun. It'd be like watching a two-hour movie where people just walk down the street and nothing happens.

edit: And every game tells a story! Even if the story is "we went into a dungeon, killed a dragon, took it's stuff and high-fived", it's still a story! Even if it's "we wandered aimlessly for a while and fought some orcs" that's still a story! Are they interesting ones? No, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still stories.

Quote from: Omnifray;419584Did it come very, very close to breaking your spirit as an immersive roleplayer? Did the relentless railroading lead to the homicidal rage, and was that homicidal rage a real-world event?? Presumably not leading to ACTUAL homicide...

No, the homicidal rage was in character. For example, we show up in this town and decide we need an audience with the king. The GM states that meeting him will be basically impossible. One of the guys basically says, "I beg to differ." He then murders one of his hirelings in the street, assuming that if nothing else would get the guy's attention, that would.

The game was still immersive. The tools he used to rail road us were all the good ones. The characters didn't know much about the world. There was a DMPC who was more powerful and informed than the rest of us, and hiding information. We were having prophetic dreams. The scenarios were so black and white that there was only ever one good and or useful course of action. Nothing that happened was out of sink with what should or could happen, given the personalities of the characters in the game.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419577Explain to me how any game you ran didn't have a story or narrative. Don't give a stupid little coy non-answer, actually defend your stance.

I did. Several times over this thread. So read my posts again, because visibly you haven't been paying much attention to what's been said already, assuming you indeed did think before you posted the first time.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419590edit: And every game tells a story! Even if the story is "we went into a dungeon, killed a dragon, took it's stuff and high-fived", it's still a story! Even if it's "we wandered aimlessly for a while and fought some orcs" that's still a story! Are they interesting ones? No, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still stories.

...and while gaming, people generated heat with their bodies, and talked. So really, RPGs are about HEAT and TALKING.

Quote from: boulet;419568I'm puzzled by story-game designers trying to create mystery games. It seems impossible to design a game that both create story collaboratively and enables players to reveal a mystery. "Randomly created mystery on the fly" isn't going to satisfy gamers who want to prove their wits and deductive powers either. If there's no secret and no one to say "you're warming up... nope getting cold" then players aren't going to solve any mystery.

Hail the True Believer! Mystery, intrigue, suspense and discovery are key experiences of immersive roleplay for which abstract storygaming is full of fail. Welcome to the Priesthood brother!

Quote from: FunTyrant;419590I don't see how it matters when the story was told, it's still a story. Things happened; there's no quantum cut-off point where something "starts" being a story where it wasn't before.

So, wait...you don't want a game with drama or conflict or a compelling narrative? Then, quite frankly, what's the bloody point? Just having your character wandering aimlessly through a campaign world just seems so...pointless and not-fun. It'd be like watching a two-hour movie where people just walk down the street and nothing happens.

edit: And every game tells a story! Even if the story is "we went into a dungeon, killed a dragon, took it's stuff and high-fived", it's still a story! Even if it's "we wandered aimlessly for a while and fought some orcs" that's still a story! Are they interesting ones? No, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still stories.

People don't have a problem here with having cool things happen. What they want is for the events to come about organically through the natural interaction between the characters and nature. You can even get things to go a certain way by writing up certain kinds of people. What is frowned on is having the players or GM artificially determining what happens and then forcing the chain of events along that path, irrespective of what would seem more likely.

Quote from: Settembrini;419571The mystery, it is just window dressing. Because, you know, TV and Comic book adventures RILLY are about the human condition! And that is the Forge-conjecture that even approaches conspiracy-like actions, as they are very secretive in their games about that.
So, not the detectives or the perpetrators actions matter. But the "cathartic process" of revealing some of your/your characters inner life through the process of story creation against the painted canvas of the Mystery.

It all comes back to a total failure to engage their faculty of empathy with the immersive roleplayers around them. It's not that they're bad people. It's just that they're not really focused on engaging with the internal perspective of other people because that's all subjectivity which carries very little weight in their world of solipsism and the Scientific Method where nothing which isn't externally observable is worth noticing. Of course they then go and make assertions about other people's internal experiences which actually contradict what those people report* (e.g. denying immersion exists), showing that inevitably they themselves are forced to engage with the roleplayer's internal perspective, it's just that, due to a craptacular lack of empathic effort, when they do so the result is full of epic fail.

* this is not what I was doing to John Morrow on another thread; I wasn't disagreeing with the substance of his experiences, just being pedantic about how he described them, more or less at a terminological / semantic level - I do that sometimes

Quote from: FunTyrant;419590I don't see how it matters when the story was told, it's still a story. Things happened; there's no quantum cut-off point where something "starts" being a story where it wasn't before.

Sett is right. The problem is that you visibly don't understand what a "story" is, isn't, or implies. See previous posts for more.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419573Can you tell me what happened in your game? Then guess what? That's a story!

Are things happening one after the other? Then guess what? That's a narrative!

Are the players actually doing things and interacting with setting elements? Then guess what? They're collaborating in the story!

I have had exactly this debate with a number of posters on this site over the last few days, at tedious length. As a use of plain English, of course, you ARE right on any sane view that describing things happening one after the other is a narrative, and a description of what happened in the game would be a story. But what you are in danger of missing is the significance of where the focus of the activity is and what its purpose is. Just because roleplaying games inevitably involve the creation of a story, and just because roleplaying games inevitably use techniques of story, even if only the GM uses them, and even if he uses them subconsciously, does not mean that the game's purpose or focal significance is the creation of a story.

QuoteI mean, how can you honestly say that RPGs aren't about stories or narratives?

Because what RPGs are fundamentally about is immersion in your character's point of view, having your character come alive for you and using that phenomenon as a vehicle for the experience of a deeply atmospheric game. The atmosphere might be one of the excitement of combat, it might be one of mystery, suspense, horror or tragedy. It might even involve soaking in poignant themes in the form of personal dilemmas of the sort so-called-GNS-narrativists love so much (and I love those themes too! but I'm not a so-called-GNS-narrativist).

The story is just something which you do to keep yourself busy while you are busy being immersed. It's a vehicle for reaching immersion, an incidental byproduct of play, nothing more. It's not the purpose of play in any meaningful sense. Unless your group switches its focus from immersion to the story.

Of course, terminologically I'm not fully on Pundit's side on this one, because I think that storygames are a kind of roleplaying game. They are just not immersive roleplaying games in the true sense. To me, it's as obvious as the craptacularity of GNS that immersive RPGs inevitably involve elements of storygaming (especially at the GM's end), and storygames almost inevitably involve elements of immersive roleplaying. It's a difference of focus. They are at opposite ends of a continuum from the focus on the construction and content of the in-game events to the focus on the player's experience of the in-game events.

So to me, storygames are abstract roleplaying games, as opposed to immersive roleplaying games.

But a lot of games which you may think of as storygames are actually immersive roleplaying games on this view. For instance Dread of Night which I played at a con last year. Excellent game. Totally an immersive RPG. Yes the GM was focusing relentlessly on certain themes. But all I the player had to do was roleplay immersively. I had a stake in my character,a sense of ownership of him, and the chance for impactful choices within the game. I had suspension of disbelief. There was descriptive engagement with the game-world. I took my character's point of view undistracted by considerations of how to improve the game-narrative or push it in particular directions - that last one is what immersion is all about.

So ask yourself - is the reason why you enjoy the games you play that they end up looking like a story which you find absorbing, or is it that you immerse yourself in your character's point of view and see the world through his eyes, which heightens your experience of the story considerably? If the latter, then the fact that you prefer the story to take particular sorts of direction, such as dealing with poignant themes, seems to me to be by the by. The really important thing is that the key to your enjoyment of play is immersive roleplay, rather than the abstract form that the story takes. So, maybe you're not a storygamer after all - in the sense I use the term anyway.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419575I was actually refering to the "And the GM is God, what he says goes. That's what you always told me. I am God and God says you..."

And the intention behind that statement could be:- "You said I the GM am God. I took that to mean I could craft the game any way I chose. Obviously I have approached this endeavour with a view to creating the most enjoyable possible experience for all of us, especially including you guys. So please, bear with me. It's a shared social expectation of ours that you will let me fulfil my role. Please do. Be patient and you will reap the rewards shortly, when I reveal the true extent of the cosmic intrigue your characters are about to get involved in, in a breathtaking game full of mystery, suspense, excitement, horror, tragedy and thematic poignancy". So, that doesn't necessarily make him an ass-hat either. Though perhaps he could have expressed himself better.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419577Explain to me how any game you ran didn't have a story or narrative.

Benoist might or might not think that no game he ran had a story or narrative. He probably does think that. I don't.

But that's not the point.

The point is not whether RPGs have a story or narrative, the point is what are RPGs really about?

In your language, FunTyrant, if you are a GNS-loving storygamer, RPGs are more or less basically about being in actor stance (with the concomitant consequence of heightening your experience of play - but GNS doesn't have a word for that because it bans immersion).

See my earlier post for more on this.

Quote from: Settembrini;419585I played more Storygames than you apparently, out of journalistic interest.
The people that are crappified are those who buy into the whole thing and wonder where everybody went. Like CR Nixon, just listen to his podcast...
I think you know exactly what I meant. Or are you some kind of totalitarian algebraic thinker?

But I do remember you being a douchebag of some sorts. In any case, with anything related to culture, there is no algebra. And there is no brain damage.

I'm not thinking algebraically. I've just never met anyone who told me they felt crappified about gaming and who was a storygamer. In fact, I've never met anyone who told me they felt crappified about gaming, except due to burn-out from too MUCH obsessive gaming, or other external factors e.g. it not being socially-speaking cool enough for them, or real life getting in the way. So I don't go around assuming people are crappified by gaming.

But I have met zealous fanatical storygamers who acted totally as if they were put off any kind of game which they couldn't immediately pigeonhole as "narrativist" or "gamist" within the tedious framework of GNS. Telling me games which engage with all sorts of aims at once are bland, etc. Code, I think, for "incoherent according to GNS". Is that the sort of mental degeneracy you had in mind? I just can't believe that it infects any large proportion of people exposed to the storygaming virus. Otherwise storygaming would be the mainstream hobby by now, and this is one of Pundit's key arguments.

Oh fuck, 4e... :p

(cue flamewar)

... but even if 4e is a storygame, everything I hear is that Pathfinder books are neck and neck with 4e core books for sales. Of course I only have the anecdotal views of store-workers to go on. But if that's the case, it could be construed as a massive reaction against the gamist-storygame agenda some ascribe to 4e. Which given the strength of the D&D brand is pretty staggering.

Thanks for the douchebag comment by the way. Can you justify it?

Quote from: Benoist;419592I did. Several times over this thread. So read my posts again, because visibly you haven't been paying much attention to what's been said already, assuming you indeed did think before you posted the first time.

Of course he can't understand what you say because of your zealous insistence that your games have nothing at all to do with narrative. If you untwisted your knickers a bit* and explained that what you really mean is that any element of narrative in your games (assuming for the sake of argument that there even is such an element of narrative in your games) is purely incidental to the real purpose of the game, which is the heightened state of experiencing the game-world attained through immersion in a character's point of view, achieved through immersive roleplaying, maybe he might understand.

* no offence intended

@Sette: Danke fürs Kompliment!

Regarding story and plot... have we found and expressed a common definition yet? If not, let me offer one pulled straight from my old, moldy linguistic textbooks:

Story: the narration of a chronological sequence of events.
Plot: the narration of the causal and logical structure which connects events.

E.M. Forster's brilliant examples:
The king died and then the queen died (story).
The king died and then the queen died of grief (plot).

Using these definitions, traditional roleplaying games NEVER tell a story. In trad games, players use their characters as vehicles to explore the game world and (within limitations) to satisfy their desires (or live out their fantasies).

Only WHEN TALKING ABOUT the game events, it becomes a story.

"Story Games" is actually is misnomer because what they really are is "Plot Games": Players and GMs (if there's any difference between them, often there's none) deliberately "frame scenes" to highlight causal and logical structures within the game.

Quote from: Omnifray;419611* no offence intended

No offense taken, mate. :)

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;419612Regarding story and plot... have we found and expressed a common definition yet? If not, let me offer one pulled straight from my old, moldy linguistic textbooks:

Story: the narration of a chronological sequence of events.
Plot: the narration of the causal and logical structure which connects events.

E.M. Forster's brilliant examples:
The king died and then the queen died (story).
The king died and then the queen died of grief (plot).

Using these definitions, traditional roleplaying games NEVER tell a story. In trad games, players use their characters as vehicles to explore the game world and (within limitations) to satisfy their desires (or live out their fantasies).

Only WHEN TALKING ABOUT the game events, it becomes a story.

"Story Games" is actually is misnomer because what they really are is "Plot Games": Players and GMs (if there's any difference between them, often there's none) deliberately "frame scenes" to highlight causal and logical structures within the game.

Thank you!

Quote from: Omnifray;419606Benoist might or might not think that no game he ran had a story or narrative. He probably does think that. I don't.

That's actually not the case, because I was very much into plot-driven games, to steal Norbert's terminology (I find myself in agreement with his awesome post, btw), when I started playing WW games extensively at the beginning of the 90s. So that's not like I'm talking out of my ass, here. I actually have experience in the field, so to speak. This changed as I kept playing those games and finally realized how and why I was doing it wrong. Because of the damn "story."

As predicted, Norbert brings the awesome.

It would amuse me to a high degree, btw, if they would be called "Plottygames"...

In any case, there is a more radical version of the Plottygame: The Thematic Game. Tada!

Not only logical connections between events...but logical connections in regard to the moral values of the PLAYERS, sometimes openly so (Spione), sometimes disguised by some charade or trickery (DitV, frex).

And this my dear readers is the essence of NARRativsm, Forge style. This is also the ultra-orthodoxy that ultimately led to the demise of Forge. The milquetoast version though, it procreates and rambles on, as it was built upon 80ies era msconceptions and longings that the ultra-orthodox wanted to fight against.

The only real victory, and here I side with Omnifray, is 4e. And that is a victory of the kind were you talk bad about someone until he really feels bad himself and behaves worse. Because ultimately, no one except Mearls ever gave a fuck about "Gamism".

Quote from: Omnifray;419546It's just that even on your view of WW stuff, it's not QUITE that heavily railroaded as to totally eclipse the immersive RPG elements - it's just that on your view it significantly diminishes them, and it's also (on your view) utterly pretentious. Am I in the right ballpark?

Pretty much, yeah.  WW RPGs are regular RPGs when it comes down to it; in the sense that they can be run very badly and not generate immersion, or they can be run really well and generate immersion; and granted, they are predisposed to railroading and metaplot in ways that can be harmful to immersion, IF the GM goes along with that.  But they are not designed from the ground up as anything other than RPGs, no matter how much they claim to the contrary. When it comes down to it, there is nothing in their fundamental design that is built to intentionally KILL immersion, in the same way that Forge "storygames" are.

So WW games are generally pretentious garbage, but they're pretentious garbage RPGs.
Forge games are pretentious garbage and NOT RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Omnifray;419565The Forge has come up with this classification of Story First, Story After and Story Now! Obviously, Story Now! is meant to be the one you're supposed to love, hence the sexier-sounding name for that compared to the others (complete with exclamation mark).

I guess that Story First could include extensive metaplot pre-written and railroaded, a la WW according to the Gospel of Pundit [I am not saying that this is how WW games actually go, but how Pundit says they are intended].

Story After is your typical immersive RPG where the "story" (or sequence of events unfolding in the game, if you prefer) emerges through play.

Story Now! is where the participants are actively pushing the game in the direction of a particular kind of story during play. This isn't really something the GM would do on his own, because if it were, why wouldn't he just go the whole hog and do it as Story First? A planned story is better than one you make up on the spot. But if you are doing it collectively obviously the story only comes to life as you actually collaborate, and that's what Shared Narrative Authority storygaming is all about.

Continued below...

This is bullshit Forge Swine jargon meant to obfuscate the truth by dominating the semantic terms from the get go in an argument.  If I accepted these terms, I'd have to agree on a number of things that aren't true, particularly that "story after" is a real goal for regular roleplayers, that "story now" is actually "story" as normal people define it (it is not, which to me has always been the most ironic thing about Edwards' alleged championing of "story", his understanding of "story" is not what 99% of people would think of it as), and of course that "story now" is the inherently superior option over the other two.

All of these are untruths.

The truth is that regular RPGs are not designed to tell stories. Stories may come out of them out of sheer coincidence, but there's a reason that most of the times when some gamer sits there for an hour telling you about his character's awesome adventures you want to claw your eardrums out: its not actually a "good" story that's been created.  What makes it so exciting for the gamer that he feels he has to tell you about it, and what makes it (normally) impossible for you to share in that excitement (except maybe in a "good for you, buddy" congratulatory sense) is that the thing that's awesome to the guy who lived it is that he LIVED it, not the story that got made. Its a case of "you had to be there", because the excitement comes from the immersion the guy felt as he lived out his character's actions, not from the brilliance of a story that ended up getting told.
Yes, once in a blue moon there are exceptions, but this is the exception that proves the rule; the rule in this case being that "story" is an ENTIRELY INCIDENTAL byproduct of the gaming experience.

Regular RPGs, meanwhile, are not well designed to do a story first and then have players live it, there's a reason why the railroad is so reviled.   Ron Edwards recognizes this, as do ALL HIS LITTLE FOLLOWERS who have come on here deceitfully to try to argue that the RPG is somehow an inherent story-making device. They KNOW this isn't true, they're trying to use that lie to get people to then go on to accept the bigger "revolution" of changing RPGs.
And it follows then that, obviously, "story now" is not something RPGs are made to do either, so that those "storygames" that the Forge are creating are not actually RPGs at all, but something new. Edwards realized that to get what he wanted, you have to CHANGE the fundamental nature of RPGs, from a game that is not about telling stories to one that is. That's the "storygame".  Of course, while I wouldn't personally give a rat's piss as to whether "storygames" would actually be good at telling stories or not either (I only care about RPGs, not "storygames", and all my issues with the latter is the way they are trying to usurp the former), it would likewise seem to me that storygames aren't in fact all that good at telling stories either; because the framework for creating story that is historically successful is the model of one person telling the story with an idea from start to finish of what he generally wants (possibly revising along the way).  But "group story-creating" is relatively an inferior form. The problem is that there's really NO way of doing that genuine story-making well in the framework of a game, which is why Forge games will always have a relatively small following compared to, say, fanfic-writing. Its probably why the Forge Swine don't have enough faith in their own hobby to admit that its a new and separate hobby; they realize that it wouldn't have enough critical mass to stand on its own, and that it needs to parasitically leech the life out of the more broadly-appealing regular RPG hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: FunTyrant;419573I'm sorry, but I had to register because of this post.

This is the single dumbest thing I've ever seen posted about gaming. Ever.

I mean, how can you honestly say that RPGs aren't about stories or narratives?

Can you tell me what happened in your game? Then guess what? That's a story!

By your logic, going fishing is a "story-making game".

QuoteI mean, good lord, if you don't have a story or narrative or anything, when what do you do in your games? Sit there and stare at each other for four hours?

No, they interact in and with an emulated world.  That accounts detailing those interactions can follow does not make "story" the goal of the game. Again, you can make an account of how you debugged a computer program, that doesn't make "computer programing" into a story-making game.

QuoteI have beaten your point to my satisfaction, RPGPundit. Therefore I claim victory over you. I win, and that's all there is to it. That's how this works, right? I can just declare it like you did?

Nope, for that you have to either actually win the argument or get me to announce that I'm quitting. You know, like Ron Edwards did. That's losing.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;419624By your logic, going fishing is a "story-making game".

Yup. That story being "I went fishing, and caught a fish".

Quote from: RPGPundit;419623This is bullshit Forge Swine jargon meant to obfuscate the truth by dominating the semantic terms from the get go in an argument.  If I accepted these terms, I'd have to agree on a number of things that aren't true, particularly that "story after" is a real goal for regular roleplayers, that "story now" is actually "story" as normal people define it (it is not, which to me has always been the most ironic thing about Edwards' alleged championing of "story", his understanding of "story" is not what 99% of people would think of it as), and of course that "story now" is the inherently superior option over the other two.

All of these are untruths.

The truth is that regular RPGs are not designed to tell stories. Stories may come out of them out of sheer coincidence, but there's a reason that most of the times when some gamer sits there for an hour telling you about his character's awesome adventures you want to claw your eardrums out: its not actually a "good" story that's been created.  What makes it so exciting for the gamer that he feels he has to tell you about it, and what makes it (normally) impossible for you to share in that excitement (except maybe in a "good for you, buddy" congratulatory sense) is that the thing that's awesome to the guy who lived it is that he LIVED it, not the story that got made. Its a case of "you had to be there", because the excitement comes from the immersion the guy felt as he lived out his character's actions, not from the brilliance of a story that ended up getting told.
Yes, once in a blue moon there are exceptions, but this is the exception that proves the rule; the rule in this case being that "story" is an ENTIRELY INCIDENTAL byproduct of the gaming experience.

Regular RPGs, meanwhile, are not well designed to do a story first and then have players live it, there's a reason why the railroad is so reviled.   Ron Edwards recognizes this, as do ALL HIS LITTLE FOLLOWERS who have come on here deceitfully to try to argue that the RPG is somehow an inherent story-making device. They KNOW this isn't true, they're trying to use that lie to get people to then go on to accept the bigger "revolution" of changing RPGs.
And it follows then that, obviously, "story now" is not something RPGs are made to do either, so that those "storygames" that the Forge are creating are not actually RPGs at all, but something new. Edwards realized that to get what he wanted, you have to CHANGE the fundamental nature of RPGs, from a game that is not about telling stories to one that is. That's the "storygame".  Of course, while I wouldn't personally give a rat's piss as to whether "storygames" would actually be good at telling stories or not either (I only care about RPGs, not "storygames", and all my issues with the latter is the way they are trying to usurp the former), it would likewise seem to me that storygames aren't in fact all that good at telling stories either; because the framework for creating story that is historically successful is the model of one person telling the story with an idea from start to finish of what he generally wants (possibly revising along the way).  But "group story-creating" is relatively an inferior form. The problem is that there's really NO way of doing that genuine story-making well in the framework of a game, which is why Forge games will always have a relatively small following compared to, say, fanfic-writing. Its probably why the Forge Swine don't have enough faith in their own hobby to admit that its a new and separate hobby; they realize that it wouldn't have enough critical mass to stand on its own, and that it needs to parasitically leech the life out of the more broadly-appealing regular RPG hobby.

RPGPundit

I honestly don't know what scares me more; the fact that you believe this or the fact that you get this frothed up about RPGs.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419626Yup. That story being "I went fishing, and caught a fish".

So the POINT of fishing is to be able to tell a story, then?
By that logic, absolutely EVERYTHING is about telling a story, and therefore "story" is a meaningless term. You have defeated yourself.
What's more, it means that whatever "storygamers" are trying to do, what they're trying to create with their stories, is not something within that norm, brining us right back to square one.

That's the key, here, folks: if RPGs were already about "making stories", then the Story Swine wouldn't NEED to create all these new kinds of games.  They would be doing it with existing regular RPGs.  The whole essence of Edwards' argument is that RPGs are in fact NOT MADE for telling stories; he also argues that telling stories is what RPGs should do, and therefore argues the necessity for his kind of games. But the point is that he already admits right from the start what I am arguing here; as usual, his conclusions are entirely different than mine; and there's no way to read his conclusions other than "we're going to try to REMAKE RPGs to tell stories", otherwise with the same basic assumptions he'd have had to have been arguing for the creation of a new hobby. Once you admit that RPGs aren't good at "making story", and that what you want is to "make story", there's really only two paths: either you want to create a new hobby, or subvert the existing one into something YOU JUST ADMITTED IT IS NOT.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;419628So the POINT of fishing is to be able to tell a story, then?
By that logic, absolutely EVERYTHING is about telling a story, and therefore "story" is a meaningless term. You have defeated yourself.
What's more, it means that whatever "storygamers" are trying to do, what they're trying to create with their stories, is not something within that norm, brining us right back to square one.

RPGPundit

No, the point of going fishing is about my enjoyment. Getting a story out of it is one of the effects of going fishing. I caught a fish, and I have a story about it. Win/win.

Oh, and also?

Quote from: RPGPundit;419623All of these are untruths.

That's incorrect. They're actually opinions that differ from yours. Not the same thing. Your inability to differentiate between the two seems to be a large problem for you, and seems to drive a lot of your rage. You should probably work on that.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419631Oh, and also?



That's incorrect. They're actually opinions that differ from yours. Not the same thing. Your inability to differentiate between the two seems to be a large problem for you, and seems to drive a lot of your rage. You should probably work on that.

Nah....

Pundit's mostly right on this and you, 'FunTyrant' are full of shit.

Again the phrase or term "narrative authority' is a bullshit phrase when applied to RPGs.

 The GM is the final authority at the game table.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;419636Nah....

Pundit's mostly right on this and you, 'FunTyrant' are full of shit.

Please explain how my pointing out that Pundit's opinion on RPGs is actually just that, an opinion, and not objective fact, makes me full of shit.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419637Please explain how my pointing out that Pundit's opinion on RPGs is actually just that, an opinion, and not objective fact, makes me full of shit.

Are you one of those hipster post-modernists who likes to claim that "everything is opinion"? Is there no such thing as fact?

It is a fact that RPGs in their structure are set up to maximize emulative experience, that's what they do. They aren't for "making a story", they create a world, and people play in that world. Story is incidental.  That's not opinion, that's reality. You need to deal with it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: FunTyrant;419631That's incorrect. They're actually opinions that differ from yours. Not the same thing. Your inability to differentiate between the two seems to be a large problem for you, and seems to drive a lot of your rage. You should probably work on that.

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -
"I refute it thus."  - Boswell

Quote from: RPGPundit;419640Are you one of those hipster post-modernists who likes to claim that "everything is opinion"? Is there no such thing as fact?

No, I'm one of those people who's not so full of himself that I'm actually capable of separating fact from opinion.

"RPGPundit wrote GnomeMurdered" is a fact.
"GnomeMurdered is a silly concept for a game" is an opinion.

QuoteIt is a fact that RPGs in their structure are set up to maximize emulative experience, that's what they do. They aren't for "making a story", they create a world, and people play in that world. Story is incidental.  That's not opinion, that's reality. You need to deal with it.

RPGPundit

Fine. Prove it. Cite irrefutable and universal sources. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no RPG in the history of the industry ever was ever designed to make a story. Show your sources and detail your research please.

Otherwise, it's just your opinion that RPGs are a certain way.

FunTyrant is full of fail. This is getting ultra-lame.

Yes, if his English were worse I'd suspect THE SWINE who graced Sett's forum for a while. Except THE SWINE could occasionally rub two thoughts together to start a fire.

Arguably, any event generates a potential narrative. (e.g. "I typed the sentence, 'Arguably, any event generates a potential narrative.') But that is a trivial assertion that, in my opinion, is beside the point.

I just went to the bank. Really, just now. I have the narrative, "I went to the bank." I could go into more detail, but I'm not going to bother, because it would not be a very good story. That does not mean my having gone to the bank was a flawed and failed exercise. It accomplished the goals of the trip just fine.

There is not an identity between my trip to the bank and the narrative of it. The narrative follows inevitably from the event, but they're not the same thing, nor is the quality of the event dependent on the quality of the narrative, or the fact that it was related to you guys.

So let's take the example of the most widely recognizable example of a roleplaying game, D&D. I will use a real example from my the actual D&D game I played in last week. "Last week, my character went into a dungeon, fought a monster, and left." (I could go into much more detail here, too, but the details of this aren't particularly relevant, either.) The story generated is "Last week, my character went into a dungeon, fought a monster, and left."

Is that a good story? No, but that's beside the point - the trip into the dungeon was very intriguing and entertaining for me as a player (and very challenging and profitable for my character as an adventurer in the game world.) The quality of the narrative generated in no way impacts the quality of game play. If I wanted, I could make the narrative of that same event much more entertaining than I did, but even if I did so, the event itself is over and the superior narrative will not effect the event - I could make the bank event more entertaining if I really wanted to, also, but the event is, similarly, done.

The D&D event is imaginary, but its relationship to the narrative it produces is the same as that of my trip to the bank, which was 100% real. When I go to the bank, my goal is to go on a trip to the (real) bank. When I play D&D, my goal is to go on a trip to the (imaginary) dungeon.* The basic difference between the two narratives produced is just that one is based on real events and one is based on imaginary events.

And, in my opinion, if I'm going to the bank, and trying to approach this activity in such a way that I am maximizing the potential quality of the narrative I can produce about the bank trip, I am probably interfering with the quality and likelihood of success of the trip itself. I think the similar tends to apply to RPGs, for me as a player.

*There is, I would argue, a sense in which the D&D adventure is "real" - an actual trip to an imaginary location.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;419612...
Story: the narration of a chronological sequence of events.
Plot: the narration of the causal and logical structure which connects events.
...
Only WHEN TALKING ABOUT the game events, it becomes a story.

Except that you can as a matter of plain English "narrate events as they happen" - I did doubt this under fire from CKrueger, but a Google search for that phrase confirmed my view of usage to my satisfaction at least.

Therefore you can narrate "a chronological sequence of events" as they happen.

Therefore a roleplaying discourse does constitute literal storytelling.

But even if I'm wrong about that, the fact is that the generation of the chronological sequence of events through play via discourse is so closely analogous to a story, that it is utter pedantry to argue with the use of the word "narrate" and "story" in this context.

Was Du sagst (wenn ich Dich duzen darf), macht besseren Sinn auf deutsch. Denn Ihr habt nur ein Wort fuer >>die Geschichte<<. Wir Englaender haben zwei:- story und history. Verzeih mal, wenn Du nicht deutscher/oesterreicher/andertwie deutschsprachiger bist, ich geh nur davon aus, weil Du jemandem >>fuers Kompliment<< gedankt hast. And sorry for my crappy German.

Story doesn't equal history (unlike in German where both are translated as "die Geschichte"). You can recount a brief history of events. You can narrate a story. The first very clearly implies past tense. The second far less clearly if at all. I think it's natural to speak of telling a story which has yet to happen, and certainly of one which is now happening.

Anyway all this talk of NO STORY EVER! is just insanely difficult for people to understand who are coming to this discussion fresh from the storygames side of things or even the general RPG public with no understanding of the Punditesque idea (which incidentally I agree with) of immersion as the holy grail and primary purpose of true RPGs. If we can persuade people that the focus should be on immersion, not on the game-narrative, that immediately changes their whole perspective. We don't actually need to persuade them that no incidental story whatsoever is involved in the RPG hobby. The more effective form of advocacy is IMHO to focus on the positive message of immersion being the central focus of the hobby, and story being if anything an incidental byproduct or at most a technique (conscious or subconscious) to facilitate enjoyable and interesting immersion, and to bring home the most important point of all, which is that the conscious pursuit of story can harm immersion and rob the RPG experience of its central value and purpose.

It's much easier to get people to explain that viewpoint than to get them to accept what at first seems nonsensical (sitting around talking about a sequence of fictional events is not telling a story???) when they have no understanding of why that conclusion would be worth coming to (namely, to liberate the gamer from the shackles of the pursuit of story so that he can indulge immersion to the max). All I'm saying is that as an advocacy technique, even if you believe there is NO STORY EVER, you should say something which explains your position in terms that the totally uninitiated can understand:-

Assuming for the sake of argument that there even were story involved in truly immersive roleplaying (which I, e.g. Benoist, Pundit, CKrueger, Norbert or whoever [but not Omnifray], by the way deny for terminological reasons on which reasonable minds might differ), my central point is that it is the immersive experience of roleplaying from the perspective of a character which is the fundamental purpose of roleplaying and which makes it enjoyable, and that the shape and content of the sequence of events (which some might controversially call a story) which is thereby produced is not the central focus of the endeavour, and certainly not its defining feature, and in particular that the conscious and deliberate pursuit of story can be harmful to immersion and therefore overall counterproductive.

I know, it's very wordy, like pretty much anything that springs from my fingers at a keyboard, and I'm sure someone can condense it, but the point is, if you just harang people with the idea NO STORY EVER, they're not going to engage with your argument, they're going to think you're a dickwad and you will lose them to the Dark Side possibly forever.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419628That's the key, here, folks: if RPGs were already about "making stories", then the Story Swine wouldn't NEED to create all these new kinds of games.  They would be doing it with existing regular RPGs.  The whole essence of Edwards' argument is that RPGs are in fact NOT MADE for telling stories; he also argues that telling stories is what RPGs should do, and therefore argues the necessity for his kind of games. But the point is that he already admits right from the start what I am arguing here; as usual, his conclusions are entirely different than mine; and there's no way to read his conclusions other than "we're going to try to REMAKE RPGs to tell stories", otherwise with the same basic assumptions he'd have had to have been arguing for the creation of a new hobby. Once you admit that RPGs aren't good at "making story", and that what you want is to "make story", there's really only two paths: either you want to create a new hobby, or subvert the existing one into something YOU JUST ADMITTED IT IS NOT.

RPGPundit

Game
Set
Match

Quote from: Omnifray;419650Was Du sagst (wenn ich Dich duzen darf), macht besseren Sinn auf deutsch. Denn Ihr habt nur ein Wort fuer >>die Geschichte<<. Wir Englaender haben zwei:- story und history. Verzeih mal, wenn Du nicht deutscher/oesterreicher/andertwie deutschsprachiger bist, ich geh nur davon aus, weil Du jemandem >>fuers Kompliment<< gedankt hast. And sorry for my crappy German.

Story doesn't equal history (unlike in German where both are translated as "die Geschichte").

I'm sorry, but I can't get get any farther with your post because you're exhibiting a classic fallacy of equivocation here. German does use "Geschichte" to mean both "history" and "story", but this doesn't mean that German-speakers are confused by the distinction made by Anglophones.

I think you are making the same error when you play around with "narrate".

Some of you guys are really exhausting.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419644No, I'm one of those people who's not so full of himself that I'm actually capable of separating fact from opinion.

"RPGPundit wrote GnomeMurdered" is a fact.
"GnomeMurdered is a silly concept for a game" is an opinion.


Fine. Prove it. Cite irrefutable and universal sources. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no RPG in the history of the industry ever was ever designed to make a story. Show your sources and detail your research please.

Otherwise, it's just your opinion that RPGs are a certain way.

Dude, are you also a Creationist? Its funny.

Since you will end up suggesting that any amount of examples, data, or references to other items is just "opinion" (and even though you probably worship it secretly, if I quoted Ron Edwards to you right now, you'd probably say his is just an opinion too), there's really no point in having this argument with you.

Proof: The storygamers want to change RPGs to tell stories. If were already made to tell stories, they wouldn't have to.

Proof: D&D and all other subsequent "regular" games were NOT designed as games where the GM tells a story to the players, or the players collaboratively write a story together.  It was designed as people interacting in a dungeon or the wilderness.  Things very vaguely described as "stories" in the loosest of terms (an "account of what happened") can be derived from this, but they are usually the sort of thing that would utterly fail at any Creative Writing class. They are not "stories" in the sense of novels, movies or TV shows.

Proof: Railroading, the attempt to FORCE story on a gaming group, is almost universally despised among gamers.

This is an objective historical reality that's currently raping you in the ass, my young friend. Give up now before you become the town fuck-slut.

RPGpundit

Another long one, sorry

Quote from: RPGPundit;419623This is bullshit Forge Swine jargon meant to obfuscate the truth by dominating the semantic terms from the get go in an argument.

It's certainly bullshit jargon which obfuscates the truth by means of semantics from the get-go in the argument. The true terms should be:-

1. Story Planned Out in Advance, Fleshed Out Cosmetically As We Go Along
[instead of Story First, although Story First is not a wholly unreasonable term for this, and neither is Railroading]

2. Play Now!, Accidental/Incidental Story Also Now
[instead of Story After]

3. Story Planned Out Through Play As We Go Along Then Immediately Narrated
[instead of Story Now!]

In 1, the plot is mainly laid down well in advance of the game. In 2, it arises exactly at the moment of play. In 3, the individual player/GM kind of comes up with an on-the-spot plan for the story and immediately narrates that part of it... so strictly speaking, the story in what RE calls "Story After" is actually literally "Incidental Story Now!", whereas his "Story Now!" is actually literally "Story First (But Only Just)". He's got the three of them in the right sequence, it's just that 2 and 3 need to be put back in the chronological process slightly. That's kind of funny, isn't it :-D

I was not asserting nor even seeking to imply the appropriateness of the jargon I explained. I was only citing it to explain to the poster I quoted that there genuinely IS a school of thought that you can something different to Story After, and it's a Forgie school of thought. Of course I disagree with its choice of terminology.

QuoteIf I accepted these terms, I'd have to agree on a number of things that aren't true,

A pedantic no to this assertion, but you would be handing a victory to storygame propaganda for sure.

Quoteparticularly that "story after" is a real goal for regular roleplayers,

You're right, it's not.

Quotethat "story now" is actually "story" as normal people define it

With respect, I think that terminologically speaking it is.

Quotethat "story now" is the inherently superior option over the other two.

And plainly it's not the superior option. On that we agree.

Quotethere's a reason that most of the times when some gamer sits there for an hour telling you about his character's awesome adventures you want to claw your eardrums out: its not actually a "good" story that's been created. ... the thing that's awesome to the guy who lived it is that he LIVED it,  ...  

Nice insight there actually. In fact I can tolerate about 5 seconds of this kind of behaviour. Sadly, I'm sometimes guilty of it, probably for the reason you state. Very interesting.

Quote"story" is an ENTIRELY INCIDENTAL byproduct of the gaming experience.

Change this to "immersive roleplay involves storytelling as an incidental byproduct" and we would be in complete agreement.

QuoteALL HIS LITTLE FOLLOWERS who have come on here deceitfully to try to argue that the RPG is somehow an inherent story-making device.

I've already explained to you earlier in this thread, it's not some deceitful conspiracy. What it is is that The Big Model (God what a pretentious name) is a pile of craptacular fuckwittery due to the failure to apply basic empathic insight in putting it together, possibly (as a matter of speculation) because the man behind it is presumably better trained and more often professionally engaged in the modelling of externally observable behaviour, rather than in engaging with internal perspectives and subjective experience. Plus the fact that The Big Model notwithstanding this flaw is put together with considerable articulation and is superficially highly persuasive due to the intelligence of the man who put it together, so it genuinely convinces people. To jump to the conclusion that anyone who subscribes to that theory is an evil conspiracist is unwarranted. But it is a source of endless amusement. And you may be a son of a bitch but with respect, you are OUR son of a bitch. (We being the pro-immersionists.)

Quotethose "storygames" that the Forge are creating are not actually RPGs at all, but something new.

They might be kind of abstract roleplaying games rather than immersive ones, meaning you superficially play different roles, but you don't really get into them in any immersive kind of way, if that makes sense.

Quotestorygames aren't in fact all that good at telling stories either

I agree. But what they are good at is getting people to work together to tell a story. What's the point in that? you may well ask. Well, I guess people enjoy working together. I say work, but I guess you could say play, and it wouldn't be inaccurate, but pissing around together might be a better description, given the quality of the narrative endeavour :-D

QuoteIts probably why the Forge Swine don't have enough faith in their own hobby to admit that its a new and separate hobby

There is of course a storygames Internet site. I post there sometimes. I don't know what proportion of them really subscribe to The Big Model in its entirety. Probably only a small minority. The rest probably play a bunch of games, including general RPGs and some Forgie games. And they probably enjoy doing so because they get some kind of a kick out of pissing around together making up a moderately passable story together which seems awesome to them because they're having fun making it up together. Not really my bag but I'd do it maybe once every couple of years or so at a con to get a feel for it and see if I can rip any inspiration from the experience to improve my actual immersive roleplaying, and so that if it turns out you're talking bunkum and I'm missing out on something great, I find out about it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419628So the POINT of fishing is to be able to tell a story, then?
By that logic, absolutely EVERYTHING is about telling a story, and therefore "story" is a meaningless term. You have defeated yourself.

Rephrased as "So FISHING means creating a story then? By that logic, absolutely ANY ACTIVITY means creating a story, and therefore 'story' is a term of such broad meaning that it is virtually useless as an instrument of discourse," this would be utterly incontrovertible.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419627I honestly don't know what scares me more; the fact that you believe this or the fact that you get this frothed up about RPGs.

Why be scared about something which provides such excellent entertainment value?

Quote from: Omnifray;419666I've already explained to you earlier in this thread, it's not some deceitful conspiracy. What it is is that The Big Model (God what a pretentious name) is a pile of craptacular fuckwittery due to the failure to apply basic empathic insight in putting it together, possibly (as a matter of speculation) because the man behind it is presumably better trained and more often professionally engaged in the modelling of externally observable behaviour, rather than in engaging with internal perspectives and subjective experience. Plus the fact that The Big Model notwithstanding this flaw is put together with considerable articulation and is superficially highly persuasive due to the intelligence of the man who put it together, so it genuinely convinces people. To jump to the conclusion that anyone who subscribes to that theory is an evil conspiracist is unwarranted. But it is a source of endless amusement. And you may be a son of a bitch but with respect, you are OUR son of a bitch. (We being the pro-immersionists.)

Except that time and time again Forge Storygame Swine have been CAUGHT LYING in threads like this one, and all over the internet; saying one thing that they think will make them sound more reasonable and appeal to the audience they're trying to convert while over on some other website they are saying the exact opposite.  The most egregious example of this was the "Brain damage" affair, where tons of storygamers came out to try to claim that "Edwards didn't mean it" on all the RPG websites, while over on the forge some of those SAME people were saying "You're so right, Ron! I'm totally brain-damaged!".  There are plenty of other examples as well. People on the Storygames website feigning "respect" for Gary Gygax when he died, and trying to claim he was pro-Storygames, while over on the Storygames forum they were making fun of his death in a thread they somehow stupidly didn't think people would see.

They do this kind of shit all the time. They're doing it here, right now.  Storygamers accept the premise that regular RPGs "fail" at telling stories, yet here you have several Forge Swine trying to argue till they're blue in the face that RPGs tell good stories, because it suits them to say this at this moment. On some other thread, somewhere more amenable to their ideology, they'd be trying to convince people that regular RPGs suck ass at story and you need a Storygame to do it right.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Koltar;419636...
Again the phrase or term "narrative authority' is a bullshit phrase when applied to RPGs.

The GM is the final authority at the game table. ...

NON SEQUITUR! The GM is the final authority at the game table. Yes, the final NARRATIVE authority at the game-table. The players have NO NARRATIVE AUTHORITY. The term Narrative Authority is still useful. It describes what the GM has!

The only get-out you have for this is to say that what the GM has final authority over is not narrative. But what else can it be? The GM does not have final authority over the players' immersive experience. The GM does not have final authority over the style or substance of the players' roleplay. All he can control is the sequence of events in the game-world and the description of the same.

Now, you can say that the sequence of events in the game-world is not a narrative, and I guess you're probably right. But the description of the sequence of events in the game-world I think can be credibly called a narrative as a question of ordinary English. So, it ends up being debatable whether narrative authority is a strictly literally correct term for the GM's final authority. IMHO YMMV, it is. Even though the point of RPGs is the immersive experience. Because the GM has no direct authority over the immersive experience. He only has control over the narration. You can't order a player to feel immersed. Well, you can, but it's a bit of Cnuttish endeavour.

Sorry. Omnifray you don't get yell "NON-SEQUITUR" and shut down things as if you were the hovering robotic probe Nomad.

A GM is not a 'narrative authority'. A GM is a GamesMaster and the Authority at the game table.

By-the-way, saying the word 'narrative' over anbd over again doesn't sore you any points.  Why is it you guys think it makes you look educated using words that don't apply to roleplaying games and turning simple concepts and ideas into murky multi-word phrases?


- Ed C.

When I GM I have no idea what is going to happen. I present the world, players make choices via their PCs to react to said world. Out of this interaction, a narrative Might occur as a byproduct. But this is not the aim or goal. As GM I am not in charge of the "story". I'm in charge of the setting. A setting is not a story. Protagonists doing things in that setting might generate a story, but if they do, it's really quite by accident. And as GM I do not dictate that story. It is as much a mystery to me as it is the players.

Narrative Authority means something very specific in story gaming which frankly isn't really there in most RPGs. The entire concept requires a level of intentional metagaming most of us would find quite foreign.

As GM I have authority over the rules, but over whatever narrative might occur? No.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419662Dude, are you also a Creationist? Its funny

Fucking Awesome.

Quote from: FunTyrant;419644Fine. Prove it. Cite irrefutable and universal sources. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no RPG in the history of the industry ever was ever designed to make a story. Show your sources and detail your research please.

Otherwise, it's just your opinion that RPGs are a certain way.

No, it's a question of the ordinary and natural use of language which at this stage in the life of the term "roleplaying game" can be demonstrated etymologically as the term is still in relatively fresh use. Perhaps if you had read my lengthy replies to some of the earlier posts which had replied to yours, you would understand why.

Roleplaying means playing the role of a character. Playing a role is what actors do. Playing the role of a character means, in essence, adopting what your lord and master His Holiness King Ron Edward I, First Lord of the Forge, was pleased to call actor stance. Perhaps you can understand that? Any game which is not (at least primarily) about adopting actor stance is not about playing the role of a character. At best it might be analogous to a game about playing the role of a character.

If the game is about a story, well, authors write stories. To do so they ask themselves what will make a good story. Funnily enough, His Holiness King Ron Edward I calls it (IIRC) Author Stance to do this when you are deciding the actions of a particular character and making them believable, and Director Stance when you are deciding the way the world works globally. So, if you are adopting Author Stance, funnily enough, you are doing one of the things an author does, and you are telling a story. You are storygaming. Actors when they are playing roles are doing just that - playing roles. They are not being Authors or Directors. if you are being an Author or Director and not an Actor, you are not playing a role. You are not roleplaying.

Finally, His Holiness King Ron Edward I referred to Pawn Stance. This is where you don't care about the believability of your character's actions, you just want them to fit the story you desire. In other words, Pawn Stance is basically a kind of porn. It could be fight-porn (gamism) or it could be story-porn (so-called narrativism) but at the end of the day it is basically porn fit only to be wanked over.

Please note that by my definitions I am implying that the GM of a roleplaying game is often in effect storygaming and the game is still a roleplaying game because the game is surprise surprise about what the people who PLAY it are doing, and not about what the person who is in overall CHARGE of the game is doing. For instance we call football football because the players play football. The referee doesn't play football, he watches it and makes rules calls. We don't call it "watching the ball and making rules calls". We call it football, because that's what the players are doing, kicking a ball. Unless they're American of course in which case they get confused about anatomy and use their hands instead for most of the time. So if the players are roleplaying, it's a roleplaying game. If they are storygaming it's a storygame. If the ref is roleplaying and the players are storygaming, it's probably a storygame. if the players are roleplaying and the ref is storygaming, it's probably a roleplaying game. Pundit may disagree but that is my view.

It is also my view that roleplaying involves incidental elements of story, and storygaming involves incidental elements of roleplay.

In a hundred years' time it may be that the word roleplaying game is so commonly used to mean something else that as a matter of usage that simply becomes its meaning, just as egregious IIRC once meant strikingly good, and now means strikingly bad.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419669Except that time and time again Forge Storygame Swine have been CAUGHT LYING in threads like this one, and all over the internet; saying one thing that they think will make them sound more reasonable and appeal to the audience they're trying to convert while over on some other website they are saying the exact opposite.  The most egregious example of this was the "Brain damage" affair, where tons of storygamers came out to try to claim that "Edwards didn't mean it" on all the RPG websites, while over on the forge some of those SAME people were saying "You're so right, Ron! I'm totally brain-damaged!".  There are plenty of other examples as well. People on the Storygames website feigning "respect" for Gary Gygax when he died, and trying to claim he was pro-Storygames, while over on the Storygames forum they were making fun of his death in a thread they somehow stupidly didn't think people would see.

They do this kind of shit all the time. They're doing it here, right now.  Storygamers accept the premise that regular RPGs "fail" at telling stories, yet here you have several Forge Swine trying to argue till they're blue in the face that RPGs tell good stories, because it suits them to say this at this moment. On some other thread, somewhere more amenable to their ideology, they'd be trying to convince people that regular RPGs suck ass at story and you need a Storygame to do it right.

RPGPundit

Swine: People tell stories all the time with RPGs. It's about who's got narrative authority and...
Trad Gamer: No. I'm not telling "stories" when I play RPGs. I'm living fictional events as they occur.
Swine: Well, you might call it some other way, but what you're really doing is telling stories, everyone agrees on that.
Trad Gamer: I don't.
Swine: Anyway. RPGs are telling stories, and the GM has narrative authority, but it doesn't have to be that way, see?
Trad Gamer: ...
Swine: Because you know, trad games kinda suck at telling stories. If only you could share narrative authority, then the game becomes so much better, so much more dynamic!
Trad Gamer: ... MY GAMES DON'T TELL STORIES YOU DUMB FUCK!
Swine: They could! See, if we add action points and cards so players can have an input on the storyline, boom! Your games are telling awesome stories now!
Trad Gamer: Shut the fuck up.
Swine: Don't be frustrated! You can make your games work too, see?
Trad Gamer: You need... to SHUT. THE FUCK. UP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFUL9u89Dg)
Swine: Wow. So much nerdrage! You should really work on that.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;419654I'm sorry, but I can't get get any farther with your post because you're exhibiting a classic fallacy of equivocation here. German does use "Geschichte" to mean both "history" and "story", but this doesn't mean that German-speakers are confused by the distinction made by Anglophones.

I think you are making the same error when you play around with "narrate".

I was merely speculating, not asserting, that the use of the same word for the two different things might make the association of the concept of story with the notion of a past-tense narrative more attractive to a particular individual German-speaker. If you like, my intention was to offer that up for consideration to the particular individual to accept or reject as he saw fit. I certainly wasn't assuming that he was necessarily misled by the use of the same word.

I have seen people misled by this kind of thing in their native language frequently. For instance, feminists thinking that we should say Herstory instead of History because History sounds like a contraction of His and Story - well that's fine I suppose. But if they then go around assuming that that is how the word history was etymologically derived, well there will be a lot of Frenchmen wondering how they got their histoires. Some people ARE misled by this kind of thing. I wasn't trying to say that the particular poster (NORBERT) necessarily WAS misled by it. I was just asking him to think about it.

So you may return to my post and re-read it there's a good chap :p

I can't identify any similar fallacy I might be making with the word "narrate". Do you mean that because narrate can mean to tell a story in the strict sense of a fictional work, and can also be used to relate a series of events, that I might be confusing the one with the other? If so I understand your point and have already considered that and rejected it. "Narrate events as they happen" is a phrase with some Google evidence of usage even in a factual context. Roleplayers play through discourse and that discourse is a form of narration. It is, specifically, a form of narration of fictional events in a sense as they (fictionally) happen, for entertainment. The narration of fictional events is story for entertainment is a story. I guess you could argue that it's the wrong kind of entertainment to qualify as a story, but even if that's right, the analogy is very close - we are not extending the meaning of the word story very far by saying that there is a story incidentally created by playing the game. But even if that is an extension of the meaning of the word story, the idea of the "game-narrative" seems to me to be perfectly sound.

Quote from: BWA;419657Some of you guys are really exhausting.

There are other threads ripe to be posted in or started, if this one's getting boring to you.

Quote from: Omnifray;419684Please note that by my definitions I am implying that the GM of a roleplaying game is often in effect storygaming

I am implying you're wrong. No, wait, I'm not implying it. I'm just coming out and saying it. You're wrong.

As a GM, I primarily am involved in three activities:

1.) I adjudicate rules.

2.) I *roleplay* NPCs

3.) I present situations (environmental factors and NPC actions) to the players.

I do *not* tell stories. Therefore I am not storygaming.

QuoteIn a hundred years' time it may be that the word roleplaying game is so commonly used to mean something else that as a matter of usage that simply becomes its meaning, just as egregious IIRC once meant strikingly good, and now means strikingly bad.

Speaking of non-sequitirs. It might be in a hundred years' time people greet each other by sticking their thumbs up their asses too. However, trying to enact greeting people by sticking your thumb up their ass on the strength of your sole speculation on the subject is unlikely to convince anyone that what you're doing is, in fact, polite behavior.

Similarly, your speculation on what the term "roleplaying games" might mean in 100 years time is immaterial to the discussion of what they mean today. So stop trying to stick your thumb up our asses.

Quote from: Koltar;419676A GM is not a 'narrative authority'. A GM is a GamesMaster and the Authority at the game table.

What does he have authority over? The game as a whole? But the focus of the game is on immersive roleplay. He cannot have authority over immersion, and can scarcely have authority over roleplay (well, he can try). So what else is there left for him to have control over? Only the sequence of events. If you don't think that sequence of events or the way it emerges through discourse can be called a narrative, fine. That's the only point we seem to differ over. Except...

QuoteWhy is it you guys think it makes you look educated using words that don't apply to roleplaying games and turning simple concepts and ideas into murky multi-word phrases?

Who the fuck are "you guys"? Are you equating me with Forgites right now? Cos I am most definitely not a Forgite. I hate GNS. How many times do I have to say this before you will believe me? I am an immersionist roleplayer. How many times do I have to say that before you believe me? It's just a pretty trivial difference between us over whether there is technically speaking some kind of narrative which is at least incidental to the game. I don't think it's a particularly intellectual word to use, considering how analytical this whole thread has become. If you are just being anti-intellectual about it, that's as bad as being an intellectual snob, it's the same thing, just in reverse.

If, on the other hand, all you are saying is that it's a pretentious phrase and you think it's pretentious of me to use it, well, fine. I disagree. But even if I'm wrong, me being a pretentious dickwad does not make me a Forgite and I'm not sure who the "you guys" are that you're equating me with. I am a GNS-loathing immersive roleplayer who just happens to think ONE PARTICULAR PHRASE (namely "narrative authority") isn't quite as lame as you think it is. It's like we could almost be exactly the same person just speaking a slightly different language.

I pointed out your non sequitur because it was a non sequitur. The way you strung the two sentences together made it look like the REASON for your argument being correct that there is no such thing as narrative authority in an RPG is that the GM has final authority. That doesn't follow, because that final authority could still be called narrative authority. That's why it's a non sequitur. I wasn't saying your conclusion was necessarily wrong, just how you got there. Ropey arguments like that one serve the Forgite cause by making our arguments look piss poor.

Me playing devil's advocate might wind you up a bit but it's not deliberate trolling. I'd like to think it MIGHT help some of the pro-immersionist brigade on this site to sharpen up their pro-immersionist arguments or as Pundy puts it flex his rhetorical muscle. Of course my assistance might prove to be totally buttfuck useless but it's meant with good intentions.

Quote from: Omnifray;419699What does he have authority over? The game as a whole? But the focus of the game is on immersive roleplay. He cannot have authority over immersion, and can scarcely have authority over roleplay (well, he can try). So what else is there left for him to have control over? Only the sequence of events.

Wrong. As GM I do not have authority over the sequence of events. I can't decide when the PCs will act, or how they will act. I don't know if they will turn left or right. I don't know if they will fight the Evil Queen... or join her. I have no authority over the sequence of events. I can only present the setting as it exists at the moment, and I can attempt to lure the PCs in one direction or another, but I can't actually decide the sequence of events.

My In-Game (as opposed to OOC) authority is over two things;

1.) the present condition of the game setting
2.) the actions of the NPCs

The rest is the result of the interaction between the above and the PCs. Those things, taken together, generate the sequence of events.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419703Wrong. As GM I do not have authority over the sequence of events. I can't decide when the PCs will act, or how they will act. I don't know if they will turn left or right. I don't know if they will fight the Evil Queen... or join her. I have no authority over the sequence of events. I can only present the setting as it exists at the moment, and I can attempt to lure the PCs in one direction or another, but I can't actually decide the sequence of events.

My In-Game (as opposed to OOC) authority is over two things;

1.) the present condition of the game setting
2.) the actions of the NPCs

The rest is the result of the interaction between the above and the PCs. Those things, taken together, generate the sequence of events.

You have to admit though, it is on a spectrum. The more powerful the NPCs, the less relevant the decisions of the PCs. Lets say you put the PCs against a monster that needs a +2 weapon to hit, and they only have a +1, and the thing is coming to kill them...

the number of ways you give them to get the +2 weapon is pretty much the number of rails. If there is only one, and it is at the end of a tunnel, it is pretty much a god damned railroad and you might as well be telling a tale about what happens along that. My example is a shitty but super common way of running games.

It is even more of a rail if the enemies they fight are either so weak that tactics don't come into play, or so hard that they can only be saved by DM help.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419693As a GM, I primarily am involved in three activities:

...

3.) I present situations (environmental factors and NPC actions) to the players.

I do *not* tell stories.

Agreed.

QuoteTherefore I am not storygaming.

Not agreed.

Storygaming is just another word for what happens when you influence what's going on in the game in any other way than immersive roleplay.

Can we at least agree on this (please give this one a chance):- when you GM, you are often NOT immersively roleplaying. For instance, when you present environmental factors, you are NOT immersively roleplaying. What exactly are you doing then? Please don't say "GMing" or "presenting environmental factors". Something like a volcano exploding is an event happening in your game which you as the GM control. (It also happens to be an environmental factor.) That would be a perfectly normal GMing tool - the volcano explodes. You are controlling the in-game events. Why an exploding volcano? Presumably to make the game more entertaining (rather than simply because it was statistically likely that a volcano would explode just where the party happened to be). Hey presto, you just controlled the in-game sequence of events by some means distinct from immersive roleplay. How is that different from any other kind of storygame? In fact, as the volcano is not a character, you can't really be immersed in its perspective, so you can't really control it in any way which ISN'T storygaming.

Look at it from another angle. When I played Montsegur 1244, which was my only ever unambiguous True Storygame Experience so far, I sometimes felt like I was playing an RPG, but the most striking thing was that I frequently felt that I was GMing one. It could be a bit frustrating because I didn't have total GMing power as I should like. But essentially I was a mini-GM. The facilitator, who could possibly be a total Forgite, described the players as being in effect four mini-GMs.

So, when you are storygaming as a player, what you are doing is basically GMing. If that's the case, why isn't it also true that when you are GMing in an RPG, you are basically storygaming? Except for the obvious point that the purpose of you doing that in an RPG is to facilitate immersive roleplay for the players. Fine, there's a difference there. But the means of execution is the same.

Believe me, it's the same. I've done the True Storygame Experience thing as one of four players in a GMless game and it was very often exactly like being a GM, only having to share the field with 3 other GMs at the same time, and that we were also the players at the same time. Or maybe kind of that we were passing the GM role back and forth but often in the space of a couple of sentences. I mean really. In between GMing an RPG and playing an RPG is a halfway house activity which is basically collaborative storygaming. Collaborative storygaming means being a mini-GM. So surely GMing involves some kind of storygaming.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419703Wrong. As GM I do not have authority over the sequence of events. I can't decide when the PCs will act, or how they will act.

Actually, if Koltar is right, you CAN.

If Koltar is right, and in this respect he is, as GM you are the Final Authority at the table. If you are not the Final Authority at the table, Pundit would (I think) say you are not roleplaying. Koltar would agree with him.

So frankly your argument is going nowhere.

Don't get me wrong. Obviously it would be jerk-ass GMing to make these decisions for the players as a matter of course. But you do have that Final Authority. If not, you're storygaming.

Quote from: Cranewings;419707You have to admit though, it is on a spectrum. The more powerful the NPCs, the less relevant the decisions of the PCs. Lets say you put the PCs against a monster that needs a +2 weapon to hit, and they only have a +1, and the thing is coming to kill them...

a.) I don't play games where something so arbitrary is that vitally important that no other solution is possible
b.) The odds are the players will think of something incredibly inventive that will negate the perceived hindrance anyways. Players are clever like that. "Can't kill it? Hmmm. Maybe we can lure it into a pit and trap it?"
c.) That's still not an example of Narrative Authority.

QuoteIt is even more of a rail if the enemies they fight are either so weak that tactics don't come into play, or so hard that they can only be saved by DM help.

Those are examples of poor GMing, yes. But saying "Because some people GM poorly, therefore GMing is all about Narrative Authority" is like saying "Because some people are murderers, human interaction is all about killing other people". It's illogical and disingenuous.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419703Wrong. As GM I do not have authority over the sequence of events. I can't decide when the PCs will act, or how they will act. I don't know if they will turn left or right. I don't know if they will fight the Evil Queen... or join her. I have no authority over the sequence of events. I can only present the setting as it exists at the moment, and I can attempt to lure the PCs in one direction or another, but I can't actually decide the sequence of events.

My In-Game (as opposed to OOC) authority is over two things;

1.) the present condition of the game setting
2.) the actions of the NPCs

The rest is the result of the interaction between the above and the PCs. Those things, taken together, generate the sequence of events.

Depends how you play. Its pretty common for GMs of all stripes to keep the action moving if the PCs are particularly bogged down. Say throw an encounter into a party who have been floundering trying to track down the local thieves' guild.
Basically, outside of strict sandbox play its common for GMs to inject things. This isn't story gaming its just making a game good for the players but does it have a narative bias, you bet.

Now you might be one of a very small number of GMs that don't do that and if you are great if that is what you like. When I have tried that I find that PCs can easily get trapped in micro scale events and the game drags.

Quote from: Omnifray;419711Actually, if Koltar is right, you CAN.

If Koltar is right, and in this respect he is, as GM you are the Final Authority at the table. If you are not the Final Authority at the table, Pundit would (I think) say you are not roleplaying. Koltar would agree with him.

So frankly your argument is going nowhere.

Don't get me wrong. Obviously it would be jerk-ass GMing to make these decisions for the players as a matter of course. But you do have that Final Authority. If not, you're storygaming.

"Unless you have the power to be a total jerk and ruin the game, you're storygaming" is bullshit and is frankly Forgite Propaganda "See, the GM has the power to ruin the game! Therefore we need to make rules where the GM doesn't have that power!"

If the GM **can** dictate PC actions, then THAT is storygaming! Not the other way around. Because at that point, the GM is using the PCs as pawns or sockpuppets to tell a story, regardless if the players want them to or not.

The thing is, as a GM, even if I allegedly *have* the authority to dictate PC actions (which I don't contend that I do), it's immaterial, because WHY would I? I don't have a story to tell, so I do not value any particular action on the part of the PCs over any other action. The players are free to persue any course of action they wish because I'm not storygaming as a GM: I have no "story" in mind. I don't have a "plot". It doesn't matter to me if the PCs turn left or right. It's arbitrary to me as a GM what the PCs do next. It's interesting to me insofar as how those actions will impact the Setting and the NPCs, but what story might arise from that is immaterial.

It is impossible to be storygaming if you don't have a story to tell, don't have a plot, and the actions of the protagonists are arbitrary from your perspective.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419713It's illogical and disingenuous.

Enough with the "disingenuous" crap already. If every time someone posts an argument which you don't think quite follows you dismiss it out of hand as not just illogical but blatantly intellectually dishonest, the result is you're not going to be paying any attention to any arguments which aren't 100% in agreement with your own preconceptions. The result of that is, in turn, that you will learn nothing from the debate.

Most of us, at least, are not here to deceive and lie to each other. We are here to try to get some insight into the hobby we love, what's really going on when we play RPGs and what we can do (if anything) to improve our experience of them.

At the very least when you bandy around comments like "disingenuous" you will give people the impression that you aren't listening properly, even if that's a counterfactual impression. Frankly it makes me wonder if there's any point making my point, if when cranewings says something reasonable-sounding you call him a liar.

Pundit whilst he does bandy all sorts of extreme language around makes a real intellectual effort to engage with the subject-matter of the debate. That's what gets people coming back time and time again to read his steaming crap. Because hidden in among the hyperbole there is real insight born of some kind of hypervigilant obsession (which he's actually fairly open about). If you have the hyperbole without the insight, all you're really doing is whinging. No offence intended.

As a GM, I DO immersively roleplay.  My NPCs do things based not on some kind of "story" priority but on getting into their heads and doing what their psychological personality would be leading them to do based on the PC's interactions with them.  This is true even to the extent that I often find myself surprised by things I realize my NPCs are saying or doing.   In some games, those with the "cast of thousands" method I often employ, I even end up being surprised by things NPCs say or do to one another, when no PC is directly involved.  That's Immersion.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419713a.) I don't play games where something so arbitrary is that vitally important that no other solution is possible
b.) The odds are the players will think of something incredibly inventive that will negate the perceived hindrance anyways. Players are clever like that. "Can't kill it? Hmmm. Maybe we can lure it into a pit and trap it?"
c.) That's still not an example of Narrative Authority.

Maybe not, but I'll concede it.

QuoteThose are examples of poor GMing, yes. But saying "Because some people GM poorly, therefore GMing is all about Narrative Authority" is like saying "Because some people are murderers, human interaction is all about killing other people". It's illogical and disingenuous.

In my original post, I didn't say all GMing is about narrative authority. What I said is that I think it is all on a spectrum. I think even sandbox gms have some narrative authority. SOME I said. When you shipwreck your PCs in a storm, you didn't consult a random number generator to find out if there would be a squall. You just put it in there. When you decide a mermaid keeps someone from drowning, you didn't roll 1d10000 to find out if there was actually a helpful mermaid in shouting distance. You just decided there was. It doesn't matter if you came up with the mermaid before the game or during. You still came up with it.

My players are such consistent, not always smart, but consistent role players that when I come up with an npc or a problem, I can reliably guess what they are going to do in response to it. I can engineer all kinds of fucking stories if that is what I'm going for just because I know the players and characters. They have free will, and they do surprise me, but not always. Sometimes it comes off right by the book and if I hide some rails in, I can guarantee it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419714Depends how you play. Its pretty common for GMs of all stripes to keep the action moving if the PCs are particularly bogged down. Say throw an encounter into a party who have been floundering trying to track down the local thieves' guild.

Basically, outside of strict sandbox play its common for GMs to inject things. This isn't story gaming its just making a game good for the players but does it have a narative bias, you bet.

Now you might be one of a very small number of GMs that don't do that and if you are great if that is what you like. When I have tried that I find that PCs can easily get trapped in micro scale events and the game drags.

I don't think "have someone burst in the door with a gun" is really about storytelling though. I think it's about "getting the game moving again in some direction or another".

Quote from: Cranewings;419707You have to admit though, it is on a spectrum. The more powerful the NPCs, the less relevant the decisions of the PCs. Lets say you put the PCs against a monster that needs a +2 weapon to hit, and they only have a +1, and the thing is coming to kill them...

the number of ways you give them to get the +2 weapon is pretty much the number of rails. If there is only one, and it is at the end of a tunnel, it is pretty much a god damned railroad and you might as well be telling a tale about what happens along that. My example is a shitty but super common way of running games.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419713a.) I don't play games where something so arbitrary is that vitally important that no other solution is possible
b.) The odds are the players will think of something incredibly inventive that will negate the perceived hindrance anyways. Players are clever like that. "Can't kill it? Hmmm. Maybe we can lure it into a pit and trap it?"
c.) That's still not an example of Narrative Authority.

I'm more in agreement with Dr. Jest here. Overwhelming opposition with no expectation of it being dealt with, for example, may be a dick move, but not necessarily a railroad - to my way of thinking a railroad is when the +2 sword is, say, in the hands of some quest giver NPC, and any attempt to deal with the monster in another way arbitrarily "just fails" as does any attempt to get hold of the sword except in the prearranged fashion.

I don't think this has to do with narrative authority either; the character not being able to get his hands on the sword isn't quite the same as, say, the player not being able to dictate "King Henry gives my character the magic sword" via some aspect of the game itself. One is a question of the character's ability to influence the action, the other having more to do with the player influencing the action.

Quote from: Omnifray;419711Actually, if Koltar is right, you CAN.

If Koltar is right, and in this respect he is, as GM you are the Final Authority at the table. If you are not the Final Authority at the table, Pundit would (I think) say you are not roleplaying. Koltar would agree with him.

So frankly your argument is going nowhere.

Don't get me wrong. Obviously it would be jerk-ass GMing to make these decisions for the players as a matter of course. But you do have that Final Authority. If not, you're storygaming.

Um NO, thats not what I said.

The GM is not the one that predicts events. A GM can be surprised as often as the players are.

A GM is still the Final Authority - as far as what can and cannot happen in his or her setting for the game. That does not mean the GM can't be surprised by what the characters choose to do .  (BOth player characters and NPCs)


- Ed C.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419721I don't think "have someone burst in the door with a gun" is really about storytelling though. I think it's about "getting the game moving again in some direction or another".

I don't think that's necessarily about storytelling either (I suppose it could be, but in a standard RPG context, likely isn't). It's about action.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419719As a GM, I DO immersively roleplay.  My NPCs do things based not on some kind of "story" priority but on getting into their heads and doing what their psychological personality would be leading them to do based on the PC's interactions with them.  This is true even to the extent that I often find myself surprised by things I realize my NPCs are saying or doing.   In some games, those with the "cast of thousands" method I often employ, I even end up being surprised by things NPCs say or do to one another, when no PC is directly involved.  That's Immersion.

I do the same thing! I'm exactly the same way as a GM. I've had NPCs have whole conversations with each other. I've got them doing things in the background when they're "off camera" all the time. I think this helps create a living world for the PCs to interact with, but more than that, it's just how I work as a GM.

I have NPCs who are real people, who have real goals, and sometimes those goals intersect, oppose, or coincide with the goals of PCs (which is where it gets interesting) and they act and react as their personality and mental state dictates.

I've had brilliant masterminds do something incredibly stupid because they were too angry to think it through. I've had otherwise good NPCs get into the sights of the PCs because they appeared to be doing something naughty, but were really just trying to hide their desperation. The key there is none of that is planned. None of it is expected or anticipated by me. It happens because the NPCs do things that they want to do, regardless if I want them to do it or not.

Often times, I've sometimes cursed my NPCs for doing something I didn't expect them to that threw me for a loop. But damn, if those aren't great moments as well.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419716"Unless you have the power to be a total jerk and ruin the game, you're storygaming" is bullshit and is frankly Forgite Propaganda

Riiiiiiiight.... so by your logic Koltar, Pundit et al are engaged in Forgite Propaganda? Makes sense. Right up there with Osama bin Laden is working for the CIA, and (oops I nearly had a Godwin moment, so close but so far) the English Defence League are really in it to provoke the UN into bolstering the defences of the Islamic world simply through the SEMBLANCE of the English Defence League not liking Islam's impact on England, their real agenda being that they are secretly true followers of the Koran. We have just had a whole string of the most ardent pro-immersionists you could hope for posting to assert very strongly that the GM has Final Authority over Everything in the game. The only choice [EDITED TO CORRECT:- I don't mean choice, I mean AUTHORITY] the players have is to leave. I was actually arguing for some limits on this principle, but basically, within the parameters of the game, it's true. It's only outside the parameters of the game, socially, that collective social expectations influence how the GM uses his Final Authority. For instance, no throat-raping cabin boys.

QuoteIf the GM **can** dictate PC actions, then THAT is storygaming!

No no no no no no. If the GM *** does *** dictate PC actions, constantly, to the point of preventing the players from making a meaningful impact on the game, THAT is storygaming. The fact that the GM *** can *** dictate PC actions is inherent in his Final Authority.

If you want to have this argument with someone, have it with Koltar and Pundit, not me. They're the Final Authority true believers. And they're the most pro-Immersionist people you'll find on this site along with Benoist CRKrueger and John Morrow.

QuoteIt is impossible to be storygaming if you don't have a story to tell, don't have a plot, and the actions of the protagonists are arbitrary from your perspective.

No. The central case of storygaming is a so-called-GNS-narrativist game where you turn up with a bunch of PC personality traits carved into your character sheet and pull them out as trump cards to direct the game-flow as time goes on. You don't have a story to tell, don't have a plot and the actions of the protagonists are dictated by whatever personality trait first occurs to you as capable of being welded into the particular moment of play occurring at that time. AKA arbitrary.

Quote from: Koltar;419723The GM is not the one that predicts events.

Um NO, thats not what I said.

I said the GM CAN decide what the PCs do. That's ALL I said. The GM CAN intervene and control the PCs. Call it "oh your PC has gone mad" if you like. The GM CAN do it. If not, he doesn't have Final Authority. I didn't say that he PREDICTS how the game will go.

Cole, what if the monster is the demon of the hills. The demon of the hills is covered in poisoned spines, so you can't wrestle it. It doesn't breath, cause it is a demon, so you can't deprive it of air. It can become intangible, so you can't trap it. It can cast detect thoughts and detect good, so you can't lie to it. That, and you need a +2 weapon it hit it.

Sounds like a pretty run of the mill demon, and if the game designers meant for monsters like that to be easily beat, they wouldn't bother with the DR 20 / +2 or whatever. The party isn't suppose to have a bunch of +2 weapons to fight it with when they meet it.

Now it doesn't matter where the +2 weapon is, in the hands of quest giver or in a dungeon, you still have to do it. Hell, say there are two of them. If the party picks quest giver, he sends them to the dungeon. If they go to the dungeon, they meet quest giver when they get there. Put a wig on his head and call him sally, it is the same story and you can make it happen, easily.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419719As a GM, I DO immersively roleplay.  My NPCs do things based not on some kind of "story" priority but on getting into their heads and doing what their psychological personality would be leading them to do based on the PC's interactions with them.  This is true even to the extent that I often find myself surprised by things I realize my NPCs are saying or doing.   In some games, those with the "cast of thousands" method I often employ, I even end up being surprised by things NPCs say or do to one another, when no PC is directly involved.  That's Immersion.

RPGPundit

I agree. But you do other stuff too, right? With the environment etc I mean. Is it ALL 100% naturalistic? I guess it could be. But if it is, maybe there's some kind of subconscious impulse towards exciting events?

Quote from: RPGPundit;419719As a GM, I DO immersively roleplay.  My NPCs do things based not on some kind of "story" priority but on getting into their heads and doing what their psychological personality would be leading them to do based on the PC's interactions with them.  This is true even to the extent that I often find myself surprised by things I realize my NPCs are saying or doing.   In some games, those with the "cast of thousands" method I often employ, I even end up being surprised by things NPCs say or do to one another, when no PC is directly involved.  That's Immersion.

RPGPundit

GMing, I often find myself surprised by my own NPCs in a similar way - it is possible to surprise yourself (though the longer I play, the more I find some degree of random rolling helps, probably because it helps shake up patterns.)

It reminds me in some ways what theater teachers like Sanford Meisner or Keith Johnstone (to pick two wildly different examples) have to say about being open to reacting to events. A NPC's personality can arise spontaneously in the adventure, presumably out of the subconscious intelligence.

Quote from: Omnifray;419728Um NO, thats not what I said.

I said the GM CAN decide what the PCs do. That's ALL I said. The GM CAN intervene and control the PCs. Call it "oh your PC has gone mad" if you like. The GM CAN do it. If not, he doesn't have Final Authority. I didn't say that he PREDICTS how the game will go.

Well, you're WRONG about that.

 That is still not what I said or implied.

I , as GM do NOT ever control the PCs. What they do as the PCs is their choice.

I am a very pro-choice kind of guy.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419721"getting the game moving again in some direction or another".

That's EXACTLY what storygamers are doing when they storygame. The only distinction being (possibly) that they are GENERALLY doing so DELIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY and stepping away from immersive roleplay to do so. As GM, you might be doing so SUBCONSCIOUSLY. And you may not be roleplaying any character when you do it, in which case you are not stepping away from immersive roleplay when you do it, although you might be. So, in substance, it's the same damn thing.

Quote from: boulet;419568Wow Sett made sense in a language I can understand! That's something!

I'm puzzled by story-game designers trying to create mystery games. It seems impossible to design a game that both create story collaboratively and enables players to reveal a mystery. "Randomly created mystery on the fly" isn't going to satisfy gamers who want to prove their wits and deductive powers either. If there's no secret and no one to say "you're warming up... nope getting cold" then players aren't going to solve any mystery.

For me (as a GM) the only way to get a mystery game to work at all is to go into it not knowing the solution.   Why?  Because if I know the solution and my players cannot find the clues/draw the right conclusions from the clues, I have got to railroad them along in order to make it work.  Instead I allow the players (without telling them) to shape the mystery.  Not every angle they pursue is right, but the one they find most intriguing, most engaging will turn out to be the solution.
I hate railroading players with a white hot intensity that probably exceeds that of Pundit for the Forge and their ilk.

Quote from: Omnifray;419730I agree. But you do other stuff too, right? With the environment etc I mean. Is it ALL 100% naturalistic? I guess it could be. But if it is, maybe there's some kind of subconscious impulse towards exciting events?

My statement above was in the spirit of a clarification to you rather than a rebuttal of what you were saying.  The rebuttal would be that even though a GM may do some things that might appear to be in common with the actions of story-gamers, if his MOTIVES are different; that is to say, if his motive is to set up a chessboard, and not to tell a story, then he is not engaging in "storygaming".  

RPGPundit

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419721I don't think "have someone burst in the door with a gun" is really about storytelling though. I think it's about "getting the game moving again in some direction or another".

You might not think that it is :)

What you are doing is making the game interesting you are doing that my manipulating the game world. You could do this randomly. You could have a table somewhere that says that after every hour the PCs spend in the bar not doing x there is a 10% chance that crime boss will send 4 guys to kill them, or as is more normal you coudl decide to do it when it was convenient.
The later is a narative event the former is probably still a narative event but one that occurs in a game that has taken some for the GM's authority away and given it to a random generator (just like Random monsters are the GM giving up some authority to the rules).

When you say 'getting the game moving again' what you might as well say is adding to the story.

I really don't think it matters though I am actually more concerned with the fact that each night I watch an episode of Farscape on FX it seems to have zero relationship to the episode on the night before I can only assume that this is because they are using a plot from one of Koltar's games and so it makes absolutely no sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419719As a GM, I DO immersively roleplay.  My NPCs do things based not on some kind of "story" priority but on getting into their heads and doing what their psychological personality would be leading them to do based on the PC's interactions with them. This is true even to the extent that I often find myself surprised by things I realize my NPCs are saying or doing. In some games, those with the "cast of thousands" method I often employ, I even end up being surprised by things NPCs say or do to one another, when no PC is directly involved. That's Immersion.

RPGPundit

Ditto. 300%.

Quote from: Omnifray;419728Um NO, thats not what I said.

I said the GM CAN decide what the PCs do. That's ALL I said. The GM CAN intervene and control the PCs. Call it "oh your PC has gone mad" if you like. The GM CAN do it. If not, he doesn't have Final Authority. I didn't say that he PREDICTS how the game will go.

I get to decide what can and cannot happen in this game world. If I say "Magic doesn't exist", then magic doesn't exist. I set the parameters of the setting, I interpret the rules, and once I make those things known, there is no higher authority to appeal to. Therefore I am the final authority where this is concerned. A player cannot override me and say "I am a wizard!" in a game where I've said "magic doesn't exist". I set the parameters of what is possible.

However, I am not the Absolute Authority over what happens. While I've decided what can and cannot happen, I do not get to decide everything that does and does not happen. The player decides what they do (within the bounds set up ahead of time by rules and setting), sometimes the dice decide what happens. The Players have authority to decide what their characters do, and I have authority to have the setting react to those actions, and both of us are bound by the rules. The fact that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules means the GM must be careful to use that authority over the rules (not the narrative: The Rules) with discretion and responsibility.

Quote from: Koltar;419732Well, you're WRONG about that.

 That is still not what I said or implied.

I , as GM do NOT ever control the PCs. What they do as the PCs is their choice.

I am a very pro-choice kind of guy.


- Ed C.

My bad, you were the first one who came to mind, Others certainly have outright stated that the GM can control PCs, posting on this site (this thread or the one that spawned it) in the last couple of days.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419734For me (as a GM) the only way to get a mystery game to work at all is to go into it not knowing the solution.   Why?  Because if I know the solution and my players cannot find the clues/draw the right conclusions from the clues, I have got to railroad them along in order to make it work.  Instead I allow the players (without telling them) to shape the mystery.  Not every angle they pursue is right, but the one they find most intriguing, most engaging will turn out to be the solution.
I hate railroading players with a white hot intensity that probably exceeds that of Pundit for the Forge and their ilk.

But do you know SOME stuff at the outset about the secrets behind the mystery, which the players don't know? Or do you just make it ALL up as you go along?

Quote from: jibbajibba;419737When you say 'getting the game moving again' what you might as well say is adding to the story.

There. Is. No. Story.

There IS NO STORY.

LISTEN: Read this:

THERE
IS
NO
STORY

The story is a byproduct of what happened in the game, and it really only exists in retrospect. After we played the game, got up and walked away from the table, we recollect the events that happened. We then assemble these events into a story. But DURING PLAY:

THERE IS NO STORY

Therefore it is impossible to add to the story since I don't have a story to add to.

Quote from: Omnifray;419741But do you know SOME stuff at the outset about the secrets behind the mystery, which the players don't know? Or do you just make it ALL up as you go along?

I have NPCs who are doing things. Sometimes, I might know their plans. Often times I don't. They won't tell me. Like the players, I might have some guesses of what I think is going on, but more often than not, the NPCs surprise me.

One villain I had was particularly frustrating. He was alot smarter than I am, his plans were entirely opaque to me. I just trusted he knew what he was doing and everything he did had a purpose. Eventually that purpose was revealed. It was impressive. I saw why he kept it secret, even from me: I might have let something slip.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419736My statement above was in the spirit of a clarification to you rather than a rebuttal of what you were saying.  The rebuttal would be that even though a GM may do some things that might appear to be in common with the actions of story-gamers, if his MOTIVES are different; that is to say, if his motive is to set up a chessboard, and not to tell a story, then he is not engaging in "storygaming".  

RPGPundit

Fair enough, but Occam's Razor (IMHO YMMV) suggests asking why mix up the participants' motives with the process of what they are doing in your definition of storygaming? If you constantly step away from immersive roleplay as a player and do whatever you think will make the game more like a horror game, for instance, you are storygaming, right? Regardless of whether you have in mind some actual concept of a literal "story" or not. Because you are not immersively roleplaying. You are trying to push the direction of the game this way or that. The impact on the other players' immersion is the same regardless of whether you think you are narrating some faddy story or just playing a game.

Seems to me if the GM does it it's the same, whether he thinks he's doing it to create a "horror story" or whether he thinks he's doing it to facilitate a "game resplendent with atmospheric horror". Same thing if the GM pushes the game this way or that because it will make it more "exciting". What difference if he thinks he's making the "game" more exciting or if he thinks he's making the "story" more exciting? He's doing the same thing, stepping away from naturalistic thinking and from immersion in any particular NPC he might have been roleplaying, and deliberately pushing the game in one direction or another. The impact on the players is the same whether he has any notion of "story" or not. Why should his notion or lack of notion of "story" make any difference to the essence of what he's doing?

For the sake of argument, I'm assuming in ALL these cases the person doing this is intending to allow for the fact that the players / other players will do their own thing - he doesn't have a pre-planned story to tell as such, with a pre-planned plot. There's no question of railroading.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419742There. Is. No. Story.

There IS NO STORY.

LISTEN: Read this:

THERE
IS
NO
STORY

The story is a byproduct of what happened in the game, and it really only exists in retrospect. After we played the game, got up and walked away from the table, we recollect the events that happened. We then assemble these events into a story. But DURING PLAY:

THERE IS NO STORY

Therefore it is impossible to add to the story since I don't have a story to add to.

Look it realy doesn't matter this is all semantic bullshit. We could sit down at a table and play a game and our approaches would pretty much identical. If you think that moving the game along to get to some exciting bits isn't adding to the story and I think it is, does it actually matter.
I mean we are all agreed that the SWINE were only trying to take over the universe in Pundit's head right  :)

Quote from: Cranewings;419729Cole, what if the monster is the demon of the hills. The demon of the hills is covered in poisoned spines, so you can't wrestle it. It doesn't breath, cause it is a demon, so you can't deprive it of air. It can become intangible, so you can't trap it. It can cast detect thoughts and detect good, so you can't lie to it. That, and you need a +2 weapon it hit it.

Well, you've really just made the task (much) harder. I don't know, say the party members build a couple of hot water balloons the baskets of which each are filled with hundreds of gallons of holy water, and dump it on the monster. It's apparently not immune to that. I know it's a sort of goofy solution, but it's something PCs might try that as yet, you hadn't addressed. Now, if you immediately update the creature's abilities to include a 'new' resistance to whatever plan the PCs come up with, that is railroad territory.

I mean, at the end of the day, can the the PCs just say "fuck this stupid country anyway," decide it's a better idea to steal the king's horses and bolt for the next kingdom. If they're free to try, and have a chance to succeed that is reasonably relative to the ostensible difficulty of that plan, I don't think they're being railroaded. It is probably hard to steal the king's horses too, but maybe it's not as hard as fighting the demon.

If an angel descends and threatens to slay them if they try to skip town, direly warning they must go do X for the king and get the royal sword +2, for example, and a comparable "turn to page 21" exists for any alternative plan of action, that's railroading.

A challenge being really hard, or the PCs managing to get themself between a rock and a hard place, is IMO a different thing. Not that the two don't sometimes go hand in hand.

Quote from: Cranewings;419729Sounds like a pretty run of the mill demon, and if the game designers meant for monsters like that to be easily beat, they wouldn't bother with the DR 20 / +2 or whatever. The party isn't suppose to have a bunch of +2 weapons to fight it with when they meet it.

Well, something being hard to beat doesn't mean it's supposed to be intrinsically insurmountable.
Now it doesn't matter where the +2 weapon is, in the hands of quest giver or in a dungeon, you still have to do it. Hell, say there are two of them.

Quote from: Cranewings;419729If the party picks quest giver, he sends them to the dungeon. If they go to the dungeon, they meet quest giver when they get there. Put a wig on his head and call him sally, it is the same story and you can make it happen, easily.

This part sounds like a railroad situation, I think.

Quote from: Benoist;419738Ditto. 300%.

FWIW I mostly GM this way. Not absolutely always to be sure. But it's the easiest way for me to GM, it comes most instinctively, and it probably dominates 95% of my NPC-to-PC discourse, possibly 99.5%

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419716"Unless you have the power to be a total jerk and ruin the game, you're storygaming" is bullshit and is frankly Forgite Propaganda "See, the GM has the power to ruin the game! Therefore we need to make rules where the GM doesn't have that power!"

If the GM **can** dictate PC actions, then THAT is storygaming! Not the other way around. Because at that point, the GM is using the PCs as pawns or sockpuppets to tell a story, regardless if the players want them to or not.

The thing is, as a GM, even if I allegedly *have* the authority to dictate PC actions (which I don't contend that I do), it's immaterial, because WHY would I? I don't have a story to tell, so I do not value any particular action on the part of the PCs over any other action. The players are free to persue any course of action they wish because I'm not storygaming as a GM: I have no "story" in mind. I don't have a "plot". It doesn't matter to me if the PCs turn left or right. It's arbitrary to me as a GM what the PCs do next. It's interesting to me insofar as how those actions will impact the Setting and the NPCs, but what story might arise from that is immaterial.

It is impossible to be storygaming if you don't have a story to tell, don't have a plot, and the actions of the protagonists are arbitrary from your perspective.

Hear Hear.  The good Doctor hits the bullseye!

Quote from: Omnifray;419689I can't identify any similar fallacy I might be making with the word "narrate". Do you mean that because narrate can mean to tell a story in the strict sense of a fictional work, and can also be used to relate a series of events, that I might be confusing the one with the other? If so I understand your point and have already considered that and rejected it. "Narrate events as they happen" is a phrase with some Google evidence of usage even in a factual context. Roleplayers play through discourse and that discourse is a form of narration. It is, specifically, a form of narration of fictional events in a sense as they (fictionally) happen, for entertainment. The narration of fictional events is story for entertainment is a story. I guess you could argue that it's the wrong kind of entertainment to qualify as a story, but even if that's right, the analogy is very close - we are not extending the meaning of the word story very far by saying that there is a story incidentally created by playing the game. But even if that is an extension of the meaning of the word story, the idea of the "game-narrative" seems to me to be perfectly sound.

Omnifray, I know that you're discussing things in good faith. Just want to get that out there. (I do think you're missing something when you say that GMs are necessarily story gaming, but that's not immediately important here.)

The fallacy that you're falling into is especially odd since you've already largely refuted it with your recent post using Forge Actor vs. Author stance vocabulary. "Narrate events as they happen" can have at least three meanings, to my mind, and I don't think it's valid to casually conflate them.

One is what a sports announcer does over the radio, simply relating what he or she sees for the benefit of the audience.

The second is improvisationally telling a story. In this sense the phrase is actually pretty inexact, since the things being narrated aren't really happening, and it's not really clear they're "happening" as they're being narrated. For example, if you told the story using the past tense, would that mean it was happening in the past, in contrast to the fictional story that's happening "as you narrate it"?

The third is a speech act declaring your "move" in a dynamic imaginary space. As the space itself isn't conceived as a story-space, you're doing something different from "telling a story". Saying "I try to hit him" is as much a speech act as a Poker player saying "I'll see you and raise $5."

Without access to the word "narrate", I doubt that you'd be able to cover all three concepts. And in fact, English in its richness offers separate terms for the three: "Report", "Make up" (also "Compose", "Concoct", "Fabricate"), "Declare".

In short, "narrate" is a terrible, loaded term to use for the general activity of playing RPGs.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419745Look it realy doesn't matter this is all semantic bullshit. We could sit down at a table and play a game and our approaches would pretty much identical. If you think that moving the game along to get to some exciting bits isn't adding to the story and I think it is, does it actually matter.

I really do think there is a difference of more then semantics between events and stories that it's instructive to address.

At the same time, interesting events can improve the story that is derived from those events, but that's an incidental aftereffect.

The distinction is valid, in my opinion, because the events that are the most interesting during play are not necessarily congruent with the events that make for the better story.

I don't see that much difference between railroading and story telling, and railroading people, my point is, is easy. Cole, put my last post in conjunction with my one before that. I know my players really well. When I give them some shit to do, I can guess with a great deal of accuracy if they will fight it to the death, skip town, or make another plan. If I can guess what they are going to do, especially because they did something stupid like pick an alignment they are serious about rping, than putting them on the rails is even easier.

Once they are on the rails, I can talk all day.

It is so easy to do, and so necessary when players start meandering aimlessly and boringly, that almost all GMs do it to some extent. That is why it isn't black and white. It is on a spectrum.

Quote from: Cole;419746Well, you've really just made the task (much) harder. I don't know, say the party members build a couple of hot water balloons the baskets of which each are filled with hundreds of gallons of holy water, and dump it on the monster. It's apparently not immune to that. I know it's a sort of goofy solution, but it's something PCs might try that as yet, you hadn't addressed. Now, if you immediately update the creature's abilities to include a 'new' resistance to whatever plan the PCs come up with, that is railroad territory.

I mean, at the end of the day, can the the PCs just say "fuck this stupid country anyway," decide it's a better idea to steal the king's horses and bolt for the next kingdom. If they're free to try, and have a chance to succeed that is reasonably relative to the ostensible difficulty of that plan, I don't think they're being railroaded. It is probably hard to steal the king's horses too, but maybe it's not as hard as fighting the demon.

If an angel descends and threatens to slay them if they try to skip town, direly warning they must go do X for the king and get the royal sword +2, for example, and a comparable "turn to page 21" exists for any alternative plan of action, that's railroading.

A challenge being really hard, or the PCs managing to get themself between a rock and a hard place, is IMO a different thing. Not that the two don't sometimes go hand in hand.




Well, something being hard to beat doesn't mean it's supposed to be intrinsically insurmountable.
Now it doesn't matter where the +2 weapon is, in the hands of quest giver or in a dungeon, you still have to do it. Hell, say there are two of them.



This part sounds like a railroad situation, I think.

I have lost track are we now saying that GM railroads are Storygaming?

So does that mean they aren't RPGs any more?

So doesn't that imply that exactly the same game in the hands of different players is or isn't an RPG?

Doesn't that imply that the same games could be RPGs some of the time and not RPGs (say they were story games for example) some of the time in the hands of the same players , even within the same in game event?

Doesn't that means that all RPGs have a bit of storytelling potentially buried with in them and all story games have potential RPGness trying to get out?

So aren't we saying that there is RPGing (call it immersive) behaviour and there is a storygaming behaviour and all players sit on a spectrum running from 100%:0% to 0%:100% ?

Isn't that where we came in?

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419742There. Is. No. Story.

There IS NO STORY.

LISTEN: Read this:

THERE
IS
NO
STORY

They don't seem to get it. Really, it comes down to:

Swine: People tell stories all the time with RPGs. It's about who's got narrative authority and...
Trad Gamer: No. I'm not telling "stories" when I play RPGs. I'm living fictional events as they occur.
Swine: Well, you might call it some other way, but what you're really doing is telling stories, everyone agrees on that.
Trad Gamer: I don't.
Swine: Anyway. RPGs are telling stories, and the GM has narrative authority, but it doesn't have to be that way, see?
Trad Gamer: ...
Swine: Because you know, trad games kinda suck at telling stories. If only you could share narrative authority, then the game becomes so much better, so much more dynamic!
Trad Gamer: ... MY GAMES DON'T TELL STORIES YOU DUMB FUCK!
Swine: They could! See, if we add action points and cards so players can have an input on the storyline, boom! Your games are telling awesome stories now!
Trad Gamer: Shut the fuck up.
Swine: Don't be frustrated! You can make your games work too, see?
Trad Gamer: You need... to SHUT. THE FUCK. UP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFUL9u89Dg)
Swine: Wow. So much nerdrage! You should really work on that.

We're only getting at the part where you want to call him a "Dumb Fuck." :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;419745Look it realy doesn't matter this is all semantic bullshit.

You could have just posted that in post #2 and ended all of this right away.

But that's the problem: all this "oh you're all really storygaming! You just don't know it!" is nothing but semantical bullshit. I'm just pointing out that when you use theory-jargon words in theory-jargon ways but loosen the definitions up so that everything and anything fits your theory-jargon selectively, then really you're proving nothing.

QuoteIf you think that moving the game along to get to some exciting bits isn't adding to the story and I think it is, does it actually matter.

My point of contention is that the story exists to be added to, to begin with. I don't think it does. I think that the story happens only in retrospect. Adding exciting bits to get the game moving along MIGHT add to the story in retrospect. But it also might not.

Ever seen a movie where some crazy action scene comes out of NOWHERE and afterwards you're saying "where did that come from? Who were those guys? What was the point of that scene?" I sure have. It added nothing to the story of the movie at all. It was just filler.

Sometimes we just have filler too, because an action scene is just more fun than a "lets go over the plan one MORE time" scene. It might not add anything at all to the story. It might, in fact, not even be worth mentioning after the fact. Random encounters fill this roll precisely: they're random.

And random is OK because we're NOT telling a story. We're experiencing a game world through our characters. A world filled with adventure and danger and excitement. Some of that danger and excitement will be relevent to the PC's goals. Some of it won't. We'll only really know which added to the story in retrospect.

QuoteI mean we are all agreed that the SWINE were only trying to take over the universe in Pundit's head right  :)

I believe there has been a concentrated effort by the forgites to try to move the goalposts. I think they created a false premise, and have ever since been trying to prove that premise to the detriment of the hobby.

Not to say nothing good came out of the Forge: a broken clock is right twice a day, after all, but even the things that *were* good weren't good for the reasons they thought they were.

I think they honestly believed they were spearheading a revolution. I also think they were off their rocker more often than not. I think Forge theory has proven time and again to not hold water that the forgites are trying to redefine their terms in order to be able to declare victory.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419742DURING PLAY:

THERE IS NO STORY

Who cares? To the outside observer RPGs look every bit exactly the same as storygames except that the players might be taking more control of events in storygames and the course that events take may seem rather more contrived and being generous perhaps more dynamic. The only difference is in storygames someone or other or everyone is constantly pushing the game in one direction or another at the expense of their own immersion and perhaps the believability of the game (and if so then at the expense of other people's immersion too). They may or may not have some crazy notion in their head that the focus of what they are actually doing is creating a story, but in fact the focus of what they are actually doing is playing a game. In an RPG the focus of the game is on roleplaying. In a storygame it is on pretending to roleplay while simultaneously pushing the game in more interesting directions. But it's not really any more of a story which emerges from a storygame than it is which emerges from an RPG, even if some of the participants might think it is. Viz. Pundit's comment about storygames being crap at producing stories.

Stop getting caught up in semantics please.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419734For me (as a GM) the only way to get a mystery game to work at all is to go into it not knowing the solution.   Why?  Because if I know the solution and my players cannot find the clues/draw the right conclusions from the clues, I have got to railroad them along in order to make it work.  Instead I allow the players (without telling them) to shape the mystery.  Not every angle they pursue is right, but the one they find most intriguing, most engaging will turn out to be the solution.
I hate railroading players with a white hot intensity that probably exceeds that of Pundit for the Forge and their ilk.

I generally prefer to approach mysteries by making them relatively easy (this can be done by making the clues easy, or the mechanics involved in dealing with the mystery more favorable to the PCs, or other ways, I'd think) and, in my opinion more importantly, accepting that the PCs might fail to solve the mystery. Failure can be a bummer but it can also make for good gaming, depending on other factors.

Quote from: Omnifray;419756Who cares? To the outside observer RPGs look every bit exactly the same as storygames except that the players might be taking more control of events in storygames and the course that events take may seem rather more contrived and being generous perhaps more dynamic.

Again we move the goalposts!

If RPGs were a spectator sport, you might have a point. They're not. The experience of play is what matters in RPGs, not in how it might or might not look to some hypothetical observer.

QuoteStop getting caught up in semantics please.

Hello, Mr. Kettle? I have a Mr. Pot calling for you on the Black courtesy phone.

Quote from: Cole;419758I generally prefer to approach mysteries by making them relatively easy (this can be done by making the clues easy, or the mechanics involved in dealing with the mystery more favorable to the PCs, or other ways, I'd think) and, in my opinion more importantly, accepting that the PCs might fail to solve the mystery. Failure can be a bummer but it can also make for good gaming, depending on other factors.

Failing to solve a mystery is fine, if it's not a mystery game.  But if the mystery is the reason for the game and the players fail to solve it you wind up (as I have) roleplaying being stuck in a McDonald's restaurant in Montreal for six hours plus as NPCs interrogated us about something we knew nothing about.  As close as I have come in the last fifteen years to intitating a fist fight in real life.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419753I have lost track are we now saying that GM railroads are Storygaming?

I'm not, at least. It's kind of a digression, my apologies.

Quote from: Cranewings;419752I don't see that much difference between railroading and story telling, and railroading people, my point is, is easy. Cole, put my last post in conjunction with my one before that. I know my players really well. When I give them some shit to do, I can guess with a great deal of accuracy if they will fight it to the death, skip town, or make another plan. If I can guess what they are going to do, especially because they did something stupid like pick an alignment they are serious about rping, than putting them on the rails is even easier.

Once they are on the rails, I can talk all day.

It is so easy to do, and so necessary when players start meandering aimlessly and boringly, that almost all GMs do it to some extent. That is why it isn't black and white. It is on a spectrum.

I do agree that there's a spectrum, yes.

Railroading is easy; I just think it usually leads to a less fun game.

I prefer to give players more of a free hand with what they're doing and let them go their own way. I can admit that this does sometimes become aimless or frustrating, but usually not, especially when there is a lot out there that sounds like it would be fun or profitable for the characters to do.

Quote from: Cranewings;419752If I can guess what they are going to do, especially because they did something stupid like pick an alignment they are serious about rping, than putting them on the rails is even easier.

Once they are on the rails, I can talk all day.

Do you think it's desirable, though? I don't think you're saying that but I am a little confused on that point.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;419750...
One is what a sports announcer does over the radio, simply relating what he or she sees for the benefit of the audience.

...

The third is a speech act declaring your "move" in a dynamic imaginary space. As the space itself isn't conceived as a story-space, you're doing something different from "telling a story". Saying "I try to hit him" is as much a speech act as a Poker player saying "I'll see you and raise $5."

Without access to the word "narrate", I doubt that you'd be able to cover all three concepts. And in fact, English in its richness offers separate terms for the three: "Report", "Make up" (also "Compose", "Concoct", "Fabricate"), "Declare".

In short, "narrate" is a terrible, loaded term to use for the general activity of playing RPGs.

I've already touched on this by using the word "verbally elect" in one of my trillion billion earlier posts (on which note I must leave this thread soon before I end up giving more than a whole percentage point of my life over to it, but I will keep reading it for a while).

Your version 3 of the word narrate is "verbally elect" (a "speech act").

It's my view that when you say what your PC does during an RPG, you are simultaneously verbally electing (sense 3 that you list) and relating what you imagine happening for the benefit of your audience (sense 1 that you list).

I'm not conflating anything but you can't be blamed for having missed this tree in my forest of previous posts!

Also, you don't need the verb "narrate" to convey the three-meanings-in-one here. You could just use "say what happens" or "tell (x y z) what happens".

The sports announcer says what happens as he sees the footballer pass the ball. The roleplayer says what happens as in his imagination the orc vomits up a dead rabbit.

Mummy say what happens next? - pleads the five year old whose mother decides he should go to sleep mid story.

The chess grandmaster says what his move is as he plays blindfolded. When it comes to his turn the roleplayer says what his orc does next, namely vomit up a dead rabbit.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419761Failing to solve a mystery is fine, if it's not a mystery game.  But if the mystery is the reason for the game and the players fail to solve it you wind up (as I have) roleplaying being stuck in a McDonald's restaurant in Montreal for six hours plus as NPCs interrogated us about something we knew nothing about.  As close as I have come in the last fifteen years to intitating a fist fight in real life.

I think it's more accurate to say that failing to solve the mystery is fine, as long as the consequences of failing are potentially interesting.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419753...
So doesn't that imply that exactly the same game in the hands of different players is or isn't an RPG?

Doesn't that imply that the same games could be RPGs some of the time and not RPGs (say they were story games for example) some of the time in the hands of the same players , even within the same in game event?

Doesn't that means that all RPGs have a bit of storytelling potentially buried with in them and all story games have potential RPGness trying to get out?

So aren't we saying that there is RPGing (call it immersive) behaviour and there is a storygaming behaviour and all players sit on a spectrum running from 100%:0% to 0%:100% ?

That's my view for sure :-D

Cole, yes, I'm saying a little of it is desirable. My players have a lot of freedom in my game. A lot. So much in fact that I'd say they probably don't interact with half of the shit I write up. Sometimes though, I put them on the rails and give it a kick, a little direction, something meaty and interesting, and they like it.

I might have a sorceress show up and fall in love with a certain PC. That is a total rail. I didn't roll to see if she would fall in love, or even if she would be there. I just decide it. I can also guess how the players will respond. I can put her in a story and use her as a hook for some interesting shit.

Yeah, sometimes I think a little railroading and plot muleing is fun. Not a lot of it, but I'll put a little 15% story gaming in my 85% freedom and for my group, it becomes the spice of life.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419761Failing to solve a mystery is fine, if it's not a mystery game.  But if the mystery is the reason for the game and the players fail to solve it you wind up (as I have) roleplaying being stuck in a McDonald's restaurant in Montreal for six hours plus as NPCs interrogated us about something we knew nothing about.  As close as I have come in the last fifteen years to intitating a fist fight in real life.

Haha, you have a solid point. I would say that it's not a good idea to make mystery games too "pure;" i.e. the central mystery is just one (probably large) element in what is going on/what there is to do in the game, so that they can go nowhere with the mystery and still not be left with nothing but reading the McDonald's menu. Mystery is definitely a challenge (and probably getting about due again for starting a new thread on the topic), I'm just saying I would personally avoid the "answer to the mystery just happens to be whatever the PCs actually stumble upon" solution; it seems much like a railroad to me itself.

Quote from: Cole;419769Haha, you have a solid point. I would say that it's not a good idea to make mystery games too "pure;" i.e. the central mystery is just one (probably large) element in what is going on/what there is to do in the game, so that they can go nowhere with the mystery and still not be left with nothing but reading the McDonald's menu. Mystery is definitely a challenge (and probably getting about due again for starting a new thread on the topic), I'm just saying I would personally avoid the "answer to the mystery just happens to be whatever the PCs actually stumble upon" solution; it seems much like a railroad to me itself.

The thing I find interesting about the GUMSHOE system is that while it ensures the PCs will find all the clues they need, it does nothing to ensure the players will correctly interpret the clues or solve the mystery.

The nature of the clues are different, more like jigsaw puzzle pieces and less like signposts with flashing neon lights, like you see in CoC scenarios.

The conceit of the game seems more to be that finding clues isn't what's fun about mysteries: interpreting clues is. I think I agree with that idea. You have all the information you absolutely need to solve the mystery, if you're clever and if you're careful. But the rest is up to you.

But I digress.

Quote from: Cole;419758I generally prefer to approach mysteries by making them relatively easy (this can be done by making the clues easy, or the mechanics involved in dealing with the mystery more favorable to the PCs, or other ways, I'd think) and, in my opinion more importantly, accepting that the PCs might fail to solve the mystery. Failure can be a bummer but it can also make for good gaming, depending on other factors.

The experience of the sense of mystery, suspense and discovery is one of the key experiences of play. It does not imply any necessary challenge in solving the mystery.

That might sound like railroading. Let me explain. Set up a game so the PCs have real choice. To spice it up, have some mystery thing going on. Gradually reveal the mystery piece by piece over time. Smart play by the PCs might reveal the mystery quicker, but one way or another it will come out in the end. Even if the PCs die and new PCs take over and THEY discover the final twists.

The mystery isn't necessarily something which is ongoing. It could be ancient history. The players still get this wonderful sense of gradual discovery and that's what it's about.

Now that can't be the be all and end all of the game or it WOULD be pure railroading. It's just a spice to add in to the mix. Meanwhile they're making all sorts of important choices about things which affect the shape of the game-world. The mystery is just there to enrich the atmosphere. It's not the centrepiece of the game. It's kind of like your descriptions of the woodland glades, cobwebbed caves etc. It's just there to make this feel spicier.

You don't have a pre-planned order of how the mystery will come out. But there's not much point writing the mystery at all unless the players eventually get to discover it. Even if they only discover it OUT OF CHARACTER by way of debrief when all the PCs are dead and buried.

Does that make it a McGuffin?

I've had wonderful experiences with this playing LARPs with intricate backplot which I began to piece together bit by bit during play but never quite grasped the whole of; hearing it all explained by the refs afterwards was mind-boggling. Realising how much we had most of us been conned and duped by NPCs and other PCs during play, realising the true significance of things that had gone on. It was weird that part of the most interesting part of the experience was the debrief, but it was like the icing on the cake, it wouldn't have worked without the game taking place first. (You only care about it because you lived the game which the mystery relates to - because of immersion.)

It wasn't a pre-planned plot course for the game to take. It was a web of background information which gradually came to light, partly only out of character. The game was total 100% immersive roleplay. The gradual sense of discovery was spice. Like the sense of triumph when you beat a terrible foe. It's emotional. It's not intellectual. It doesn't depend on working out the puzzle. And it's not really about roleplaying your character. It's just about enjoying yourself while you're totally immersed in the game-world.

I don't think it's storygaming because as the player you are simply roleplaying immersively, and you have full freedom of choice, no railroading, for the events by which your character lives or dies, succeeds or fails. But then you get the mystery revealed on top of that.

Horror works on the same principle.

Comments on this technique please from a practical (not theory based) point of view.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419760Again we move the goalposts!

If RPGs were a spectator sport, you might have a point. They're not. The experience of play is what matters in RPGs, not in how it might or might not look to some hypothetical observer.

The point I was making was that it's not any more of a story in a storygame than it is in a roleplaying game. It's just a bunch of events based around the actions of player characters verbally elected during play. Whether you are playing chess from the point of view of the chessplayer looking down at the board or from the point of view of the pawn looking around himself, chess still happens and it still isn't a literal story but simply a sequence of events. Same with roleplay and storygame, except that because you are verbally electing what your character does, there is discourse, which looks a bit like a story. It doesn't look any more like a story in a storygame than in an RPG, nor vice versa, and the motives of the participants may well be exactly the same (to play a game, not really thinking about what they are doing beyond that). The only difference is that in the storygame the participants are trying to push the in-game events in particular directions, and in the RPG they are trying to see through the character's eyes. That fine distinction does not make the resulting series of events a story in the first case and a non-story in the second. It's not really a story in either case but in both cases it looks so much like a story that it's a very very close analogy and kind of pedantic to call it a non-story. In an RPG, creating a story is of course not the primary purpose of play, not really even a purpose of play at all. Except you might think it was, if you were an immersive roleplayer but just a bit misguided. And in a storygame creating a story isn't really the purpose of play either. The purpose of play is pushing the events of the game in interesting directions. That just happens to come at the price of reducing immersion. You might think that creating the story was the purpose of play, but as Pundit notes, if you really wanted to create a story, you would sit the fuck down at your desk and write one on your own and it would be much, much better.

Quote from: Cranewings;419767I might have a sorceress show up and fall in love with a certain PC. That is a total rail. I didn't roll to see if she would fall in love, or even if she would be there. I just decide it. I can also guess how the players will respond. I can put her in a story and use her as a hook for some interesting shit.

I'm now pretty confused. I don't see how that's "a total rail." By that definition, it seems like it would be a railroad to put a cave on the map with six goblins in it, or to have there be a tavern in the village, or even a village.

I like to put things in the adventure that I'd be less able to predict what the PCs will do, compared to ones that I'm surer.

But again, I basically view railroading as something like "artificially blocking the player's decision making." We may approach GMing pretty similarly and just getting mixed up on communicating our approaches to each other.

Quote from: Omnifray;419773The experience of the sense of mystery, suspense and discovery is one of the key experiences of play. It does not imply any necessary challenge in solving the mystery.

{...}

Comments on this technique please from a practical (not theory based) point of view.

Some good points. Want to spawn a new thread around this? You seem to have a pretty well developed starting point so far.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419743One villain I had was particularly frustrating. He was alot smarter than I am, his plans were entirely opaque to me. I just trusted he knew what he was doing and everything he did had a purpose. Eventually that purpose was revealed. It was impressive. I saw why he kept it secret, even from me: I might have let something slip.

Wow. Pundit admitting that he's sometimes surprised by his own NPCs was already heading toward the wtf zone... But here sir you reach another level. Either it's some kind of voodoo GMing trick I never heard about, a very elaborated joke or you forgot to take your pill. Please tell me I forgot an explanation.

No Voodoo involved.

 Sometimes my NPCs surprise me during a game session - especially the recurring characters.


- Ed C.

Quote from: boulet;419778Wow. Pundit admitting that he's sometimes surprised by his own NPCs was already heading toward the wtf zone... But here sir you reach another level. Either it's some kind of voodoo GMing trick I never heard about, a very elaborated joke or you forgot to take your pill. Please tell me I forgot an explanation.

I'm getting what he's saying, personally. I've had this happen with some NPCs of mine as well. It's at that point when the NPC really is a personality that is separate from your own, and exists within the context of the setting, with you as GM not knowing everything about the setting itself, like it's blurred by a fog of war and reveals itself as the game evolves, while it seemed like it was already there all the time for you to grasp. It's something I experience regularly with my settings, actually.

Quote from: boulet;419778Wow. Pundit admitting that he's sometimes surprised by his own NPCs was already heading toward the wtf zone... But here sir you reach another level. Either it's some kind of voodoo GMing trick I never heard about, a very elaborated joke or you forgot to take your pill. Please tell me I forgot an explanation.

John Morrow could probably explain it for you.

But I've had the same experience more or less. I get into character as an NPC. I empathise with him, which is to say I focus my imagination on how he would feel etc. so strongly that I in effect suspend my disbelief in the separation between the character and myself... to an extent. The character starts to take on a life of his own. Of course, it's all really me thinking for him, but it kind of happens instinctively, at a subconscious level.

So I end up hearing myself say something as the NPC then thinking "shit, what have I just said, I'm in real trouble now I've just thrown my own frickin plot completely off the rails..." :p

At which point the best thing to do is generally just to run with it, and not worry about the plot too much unless you think the new direction that the game is taking is running out of steam

Quote from: Cole;419775I'm now pretty confused. I don't see how that's "a total rail." By that definition, it seems like it would be a railroad to put a cave on the map with six goblins in it, or to have there be a tavern in the village, or even a village.

I like to put things in the adventure that I'd be less able to predict what the PCs will do, compared to ones that I'm surer.

But again, I basically view railroading as something like "artificially blocking the player's decision making." We may approach GMing pretty similarly and just getting mixed up on communicating our approaches to each other.

Artificially blocking a players decision making is how I railroaded people when I was in high school. That is for kids. "Nuh uh, you can't do that cause another dragon shows up and casts a spell."

There are a lot of tactics for rail roading. Having a problem they can't ignore in character and only having one good solution, putting everything in a line, moving encounters, not letting the players have enough information to make decisions, a constant revelation of secrets, NPCs with rigid personalities... there are lots of ways to put people on the rails without actually forcing their hand.

Quote from: Cole;419777Some good points. Want to spawn a new thread around this? You seem to have a pretty well developed starting point so far.

Feel free to start a thread if you're interested in it.

I ran a huge long thread on the Big Purple about "The Fourth Agenda" back in the days when I thought that the interesting bits of GNS / Forge Theory / The Big Model might be worth looking at for inspiration. (For the record, Pundit, I am fairly sure this was some time AFTER Omnifray came out, and certainly LONG after I had fleshed out the main design of the game, which probably was in around 2004 though I would have to check my notes.) My notion then was that there could be such a thing as Suspensism, a creative agenda based around mystery, suspense and intrigue. The thread got Terminator-Modded because of the flamewars and I was accused of trolling.

I would phrase it differently now. Now that I am aware of the full ideological baggage that GNS comes with, and now that I tend to the view that its propagandist qualities far, far outweigh any usefulness that it might have, and now that I understand quite how misconceived it is as a theory. Don't get me wrong, it has the odd seed in it which set my thoughts going in interesting directions back then, and no doubt I understand roleplaying better as a result, but largely as a result of the analysis I've had to go through to reject most of it utterly, if that makes sense. In other words, GNS is all wrong, but the reasons WHY it is wrong are quite interesting.

My view now is that mystery, suspense and discovery, along with other things like horror, triumph and tragedy, are key experiences of play. I've been writing a 23-page guide to roleplaying to put in my next book-thingy which tries to explain some of this with some sort of practical tips on how to achieve it and TBH there's some danger it's going to end up as a pile of theory-bullshit but I think it has value so I've found these threads very interesting to test some of my views out on people.

So by all means please start a thread on mystery/suspense. I guess practical tips on how to create them are the most useful thing to get, but in my own mad little world understanding WHY they are fun is a good launchpad for working out HOW to make that fun happen.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419743I have NPCs who are doing things. Sometimes, I might know their plans. Often times I don't. They won't tell me. Like the players, I might have some guesses of what I think is going on, but more often than not, the NPCs surprise me.

One villain I had was particularly frustrating. He was alot smarter than I am, his plans were entirely opaque to me. I just trusted he knew what he was doing and everything he did had a purpose. Eventually that purpose was revealed. It was impressive. I saw why he kept it secret, even from me: I might have let something slip.

Ah yes, the Silver Ravenwolf approach to GMing...

Quote from: Cranewings;419782Artificially blocking a players decision making is how I railroaded people when I was in high school. That is for kids. "Nuh uh, you can't do that cause another dragon shows up and casts a spell."

There are a lot of tactics for rail roading. Having a problem they can't ignore in character and only having one good solution, putting everything in a line, moving encounters, not letting the players have enough information to make decisions, a constant revelation of secrets, NPCs with rigid personalities... there are lots of ways to put people on the rails without actually forcing their hand.

And yet nearly always you can get a great game out of it without nullifying their choices.

Sometimes it might be worth considering switchpoints where they can go left or right but that's pretty much the extent of their choice, e.g. side with the King against the Grand Vizier, or flee into the wilderness, one or the other, no other choice viable. Still quasi railroading though.

Quote from: Cole;419692There are other threads ripe to be posted in or started, if this one's getting boring to you.

It's not boring. I'm just not always up for Total Warfare All The Time (tm).

I mean, sometimes I am, but not at the moment.

Quote from: Cranewings;419782There are a lot of tactics for rail roading. Having a problem they can't ignore in character and only having one good solution, putting everything in a line, moving encounters, not letting the players have enough information to make decisions, a constant revelation of secrets, NPCs with rigid personalities... there are lots of ways to put people on the rails without actually forcing their hand.

I personally prefer to avoid designing situations that "have only one good solution;" I prefer to engage the player's open-ended thinking. Similarly, putting things in a a linear setup, I try to avoid that. If by "moving encounters," you mean "if they take the left fork, they will encounter Prince Vile at the bridge; if they take the right fork, I'll put Prince Vile there anyway," I'd prefer to approach that by just having the Prince do what seems appropriate when the PC's don't approach the bridge - maybe they'll never meet him. NPCs take actions, so "missing an encounter" doesn't mean the NPC will never show up, but play should change the context.

I guess I am probably less interested in setting up specific sequences of events from the players than you are.

Quote from: BWA;419787It's not boring. I'm just not always up for Total Warfare All The Time (tm).

I mean, sometimes I am, but not at the moment.

Not a fan of the total warfare. Prefer to discuss, mostly.

Quote from: Omnifray;419784Feel free to start a thread if you're interested in it.

I ran a huge long thread on the Big Purple about "The Fourth Agenda" back in the days when I thought that the interesting bits of GNS / Forge Theory / The Big Model might be worth looking at for inspiration. (For the record, Pundit, I am fairly sure this was some time AFTER Omnifray came out, and certainly LONG after I had fleshed out the main design of the game, which probably was in around 2004 though I would have to check my notes.) My notion then was that there could be such a thing as Suspensism, a creative agenda based around mystery, suspense and intrigue. The thread got Terminator-Modded because of the flamewars and I was accused of trolling.

I would phrase it differently now. Now that I am aware of the full ideological baggage that GNS comes with, and now that I tend to the view that its propagandist qualities far, far outweigh any usefulness that it might have, and now that I understand quite how misconceived it is as a theory. Don't get me wrong, it has the odd seed in it which set my thoughts going in interesting directions back then, and no doubt I understand roleplaying better as a result, but largely as a result of the analysis I've had to go through to reject most of it utterly, if that makes sense. In other words, GNS is all wrong, but the reasons WHY it is wrong are quite interesting.

My view now is that mystery, suspense and discovery, along with other things like horror, triumph and tragedy, are key experiences of play. I've been writing a 23-page guide to roleplaying to put in my next book-thingy which tries to explain some of this with some sort of practical tips on how to achieve it and TBH there's some danger it's going to end up as a pile of theory-bullshit but I think it has value so I've found these threads very interesting to test some of my views out on people.

So by all means please start a thread on mystery/suspense. I guess practical tips on how to create them are the most useful thing to get, but in my own mad little world understanding WHY they are fun is a good launchpad for working out HOW to make that fun happen.

Thread here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=419790)

Quote from: TristramEvans;419785Ah yes, the Silver Ravenwolf approach to GMing...

Silver Ravenwolf?

Quote from: Cole;419788I personally prefer to avoid designing situations that "have only one good solution;" I prefer to engage the player's open-ended thinking.

Me too. It's part of the players job to approach situations with an open mind as well. In my experience, players will feel sometimes limited in their options because there actually aren't enough explicit possibilities and the world is ironically too open for them. So you need to have a few pointers to signal to the players "hey, there are choices here. You're not stuck."

In other words, the world must provide the choices. If everything is open, then the players might wonder what they're supposed to do in the first place. That's a difficult balance to strike. Cue the problem you guys are about to solve to get to the underground levels of the Gold Ladder in the Ptolus game.

That allows me to understand how you guys deal with problems like this before we're getting into the thick of it.

So, it's not a black and white issue to me. It all depends on the particular circumstances.

Quote from: Omnifray;419744Fair enough, but Occam's Razor (IMHO YMMV) suggests asking why mix up the participants' motives with the process of what they are doing in your definition of storygaming? If you constantly step away from immersive roleplay as a player and do whatever you think will make the game more like a horror game, for instance, you are storygaming, right? Regardless of whether you have in mind some actual concept of a literal "story" or not. Because you are not immersively roleplaying. You are trying to push the direction of the game this way or that. The impact on the other players' immersion is the same regardless of whether you think you are narrating some faddy story or just playing a game.

Seems to me if the GM does it it's the same, whether he thinks he's doing it to create a "horror story" or whether he thinks he's doing it to facilitate a "game resplendent with atmospheric horror". Same thing if the GM pushes the game this way or that because it will make it more "exciting". What difference if he thinks he's making the "game" more exciting or if he thinks he's making the "story" more exciting? He's doing the same thing, stepping away from naturalistic thinking and from immersion in any particular NPC he might have been roleplaying, and deliberately pushing the game in one direction or another. The impact on the players is the same whether he has any notion of "story" or not. Why should his notion or lack of notion of "story" make any difference to the essence of what he's doing?

For the sake of argument, I'm assuming in ALL these cases the person doing this is intending to allow for the fact that the players / other players will do their own thing - he doesn't have a pre-planned story to tell as such, with a pre-planned plot. There's no question of railroading.

What you're talking about is NOT creating "narrative", however, its creating emulation.  Its making setting, not story.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;419685Swine: People tell stories all the time with RPGs. It's about who's got narrative authority and...
Trad Gamer: No. I'm not telling "stories" when I play RPGs. I'm living fictional events as they occur.
Swine: Well, you might call it some other way, but what you're really doing is telling stories, everyone agrees on that.
Trad Gamer: I don't.
Swine: Anyway. RPGs are telling stories, and the GM has narrative authority, but it doesn't have to be that way, see?
Trad Gamer: ...
Swine: Because you know, trad games kinda suck at telling stories. If only you could share narrative authority, then the game becomes so much better, so much more dynamic!
Trad Gamer: ... MY GAMES DON'T TELL STORIES YOU DUMB FUCK!
Swine: They could! See, if we add action points and cards so players can have an input on the storyline, boom! Your games are telling awesome stories now!
Trad Gamer: Shut the fuck up.
Swine: Don't be frustrated! You can make your games work too, see?
Trad Gamer: You need... to SHUT. THE FUCK. UP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFUL9u89Dg)
Swine: Wow. So much nerdrage! You should really work on that.

this is...A.W.E.S.O.M.E
:rotfl:
this thread rocks!

Quote from: Omnifray;419781So I end up hearing myself say something as the NPC then thinking "shit, what have I just said, I'm in real trouble now I've just thrown my own frickin plot completely off the rails..." :p

At which point the best thing to do is generally just to run with it, and not worry about the plot too much unless you think the new direction that the game is taking is running out of steam

So, basically, the emulation of the world and NPC immersion is what you value, and if that derails the plot, well, so be it.

That's why THERE IS NO STORY.  :D

Quote from: BWA;419787It's not boring. I'm just not always up for Total Warfare All The Time (tm).

I mean, sometimes I am, but not at the moment.

You could try doing something other then the standard narrativist exchange that Benoist listed.

Quote from: Benoist;419754They don't seem to get it. Really, it comes down to:

Swine: People tell stories all the time with RPGs. It's about who's got narrative authority and...
Trad Gamer: No. I'm not telling "stories" when I play RPGs. I'm living fictional events as they occur.
Swine: Well, you might call it some other way, but what you're really doing is telling stories, everyone agrees on that.

Not to be nitpicky, but doesn't Edwards also dismiss the notion that everything that could ever happen in a game makes a "story"?  I swore he called the "everything is story" approach something like post-modernist shit. I think that's where he pissed off a shit-ton of 90s "story gamers" who were big White-Wolf fans and whatnot.

Quote from: Peregrin;419809Not to be nitpicky, but doesn't Edwards also dismiss the notion that everything that could ever happen in a game makes a "story"?  I swore he called the "everything is story" approach something like post-modernist shit. I think that's where he pissed off a shit-ton of 90s "story gamers" who were big White-Wolf fans and whatnot.

Exactamundo, Edwards was emphatic that traditional RPGs most certainly did not make good stories.  That's the whole point of GNS, people who wanted Story-based gaming were dissatisfied with the traditional approach (even if they didn't know it), so another approach was needed.

Quote from: skofflox;419804this is...A.W.E.S.O.M.E
:rotfl:
this thread rocks!

I know, right? :D

Quote from: Peregrin;419809Not to be nitpicky, but doesn't Edwards also dismiss the notion that everything that could ever happen in a game makes a "story"?  I swore he called the "everything is story" approach something like post-modernist shit. I think that's where he pissed off a shit-ton of 90s "story gamers" who were big White-Wolf fans and whatnot.

Possible. These guys are eating at all the tables anyway. Whatever argument fits the day, they're going to make. Then later, they're just going to switch tables around, or move the goalposts to keep the thing going. This is ridiculous.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419815Exactamundo, Edwards was emphatic that traditional RPGs most certainly did not make good stories.  That's the whole point of GNS, people who wanted Story-based gaming were dissatisfied with the traditional approach (even if they didn't know it), so another approach was needed.

That's covered by my not-so-imaginary dialog, by the way:

Swine: People tell stories all the time with RPGs. It's about who's got narrative authority and...
Trad Gamer: No. I'm not telling "stories" when I play RPGs. I'm living fictional events as they occur.
Swine: Well, you might call it some other way, but what you're really doing is telling stories, everyone agrees on that.
Trad Gamer: I don't.
Swine: Anyway. RPGs are telling stories, and the GM has narrative authority, but it doesn't have to be that way, see?
Trad Gamer: ...
Swine: Because you know, trad games kinda suck at telling stories. If only you could share narrative authority, then the game becomes so much better, so much more dynamic!
Trad Gamer: ... MY GAMES DON'T TELL STORIES YOU DUMB FUCK!
Swine: They could! See, if we add action points and cards so players can have an input on the storyline, boom! Your games are telling awesome stories now!
Trad Gamer: Shut the fuck up.
Swine: Don't be frustrated! You can make your games work too, see?
Trad Gamer: You need... to SHUT. THE FUCK. UP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOFUL9u89Dg)
Swine: Wow. So much nerdrage! You should really work on that.

See? The first part is "what you're doing is really playing out stories, even if you don't call them that way." Then, notice how the goalpost is moved with "The GM has the authority, but it doesn't have to be that way, see? Because you know, trad games kinda suck at telling stories." That's classic storygaming MO right there.

Quote from: Omnifray;419764I've already touched on this by using the word "verbally elect" in one of my trillion billion earlier posts (on which note I must leave this thread soon before I end up giving more than a whole percentage point of my life over to it, but I will keep reading it for a while).

Your version 3 of the word narrate is "verbally elect" (a "speech act").

It's my view that when you say what your PC does during an RPG, you are simultaneously verbally electing (sense 3 that you list) and relating what you imagine happening for the benefit of your audience (sense 1 that you list).

Yes, I saw that. I think you're wrong to say that speech acts are always simultaneously "making things up". But even if I accepted that they are, I'd say that "making things up" isn't always a speech act. We're talking cognitively here, meaning what the speaker thinks they're doing. Frankly, when I declare an action in a game, it just isn't the same as "making up" a bit of fictional action. The sense of freedom, constraint, purpose, etc. is completely different. (One way of putting this, based on a highly cursory review of speech act theory, is that when I say what "I" (the character) is doing, it's a real declaration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act#Classes_of_illocutionary_acts) affecting an imaginary reality. When I "make things up", it's an assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act#Classes_of_illocutionary_acts) (one might say a fictional assertion) about an imaginary reality.)

In short I think if your goal is to understand what other people are doing when they're roleplaying, you're failing. In practical terms, I'm not sure this matters, but in cases I've seen, I think it's contributed to a failure to grasp why someone would have an opinion about a certain game or game mechanic--when things reach the point where one person is trying to articulate why something does or doesn't work for them, and the other person is denying a meaningful distinction.

Quote from: boulet;419778Wow. Pundit admitting that he's sometimes surprised by his own NPCs was already heading toward the wtf zone... But here sir you reach another level. Either it's some kind of voodoo GMing trick I never heard about, a very elaborated joke or you forgot to take your pill. Please tell me I forgot an explanation.

It's a matter of running a character in your brain in a sort of virtual machine so that the thoughts of the character are independent of the thoughts of the player.  You can find a really good example in this old rec.games.frp.advocacy post from Mary Kuhner (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/5f36f084b8e1fb3f?dmode=source).  Not voodoo and not insanity so long as the player is in control and understands what they are doing.  Quite a few people describe doing this, though not always to the same degree.  As I mentioned elsewhere, I've had to psychoanalyze my own PC to understand why they were behaving the way that they were behaving.

And I suppose I should point out that some authors also describe being surprised by their characters while writing and sometimes talk about their characters as if they were real and distinct individuals.  Lots of people don't or cant' do this, but that doesn't mean that what those who do are doing is invalid, insane, or voodoo.

Quote from: Imperator;419255You know this non-reasoning of "NARRATIVE IS SOMETHING YOU CANNOT SAY BECAUSE YOU'D BE TEH SWINEZZZ" is the kind of reasoning that has made the 9/11 a victory for Al Qaeda. You are trying to forbid theuse of proper English words which can accurately describe what happens at a game table, only because some guy you hate used them.

My problem, in this debate, is not with the word "narrative" in "narrative authority".  It is with the word "authority" being used to describe what players do in a traditional role-playing game.

Quote from: BWA;419459Let's say that a player says "Oh, yeah, this is Mad Mort's Wayhouse. He's a big, fat mercenary who hates dwarves with a passion." That's cool, and fun, especially if there is a PC dwarf.

Another player doing this doesn't necessarily bother me.  What bothers me is a system that demands I do things like this when I'd rather be thinking in character.  In other words, the GM giving me 5 Fudge points to use whenever I want doesn't bother me because I can ignore them if I want.  If the GM creates an adventure that requires me to use Fudge points to be successful, that's a problem, because there is a good chance I'll forget to use them while thinking in character (this actually happened in a convention Fudge game I played in -- the adventure was clearly designed to require Fudge points to defeat the villain at the end and everyone at the table forgot they had Fudge points and didn't use them).  If the system is chock full of metagame mechanics demanding that I, for example, describe how my character fumbles, decide what weapons my opponents are wielding, etc., then it's a total nightmare.  

Please note that I'm a big advocate of designing systems to allow multiple play styles to coexist in the same game, so I'm not opposed to the idea of having some story-technique rules in a system.  But the way to make them more palatable is to make them optional so that A player who doesn't want to have to deal with them doesn't have to deal with them.

Quote from: BWA;419459If so, that player exercised agency over the shared fiction of the game world. He invented something cool, and narrated it for the rest of the group, who all accepted its validity, including the GM.

If the GM can say "no", then the GM has the authority, not the player.  Yes, the player is creating details about the game world but they only have authority if the rules of the game force the GM to accept them.  This is why you'll find such rules in Forge games.

Quote from: BWA;419459Mind you, we all agree that the GM could have negated it, but since he had no game plan, his only reason would have been power-tripping, and hence, sickishness. Most importantly, in our example, he did NOT negate it. He ran with it.

That a police officer doesn't have his knee on your back and handcuffs on your wrists does not negate that the police officer has authority in any given situation and you do not.  You keep confusing behavior through permission with authority.  It's not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419476Players like mine are like John, they don't WANT any authority over the world. If they want to create worlds, they start GMing.

I suppose I should add that I do GM but don't enjoy it nearly as much as I enjoy playing.  I consider myself primarily a player and argue from that perspective.

"That's John. He fights for the Players."

Quote from: boulet;419778Wow. Pundit admitting that he's sometimes surprised by his own NPCs was already heading toward the wtf zone... But here sir you reach another level. Either it's some kind of voodoo GMing trick I never heard about, a very elaborated joke or you forgot to take your pill. Please tell me I forgot an explanation.

I know what he means.  A good character, even if he is an NPC, often develops in ways we don't expect when we create them.  Eventually we come to understand these characters through experience.  If it is a PC we go from performing them to acting from within them; with a major NPC (who may not have been that major to start with) we come to see how all of the events they have been involved with/instigated fit together.  Because the process is largely free form (or for me it is) these things aren't planned out from the beginnig; I never realized that the cowardly NPC bard who had been hanging about the PC rebels almost from the beginning actually was the missing heir (and the world's greatest swordsman about whom he often sang a truly awful lay), until one day he was doing his standard beg off from an enforcer ("Pick up the sword or I'll kill you," "Surely not holding the sword is all that is keeping me alive" etc. etc.) that I realized he was refusing to pick up the sword not because he would physically die but because this new persona was more precious to him than life.  If he picked up the sword he could kill the entire troupe of soldiers, but he would never just be a bard again.  Despite this we finished the entire campaign with him never giving himself away; he would rather have died.

Quote from: jibbajibba;419550But how much of a story-game mechanic is too much for you?

If I have to use it, myself, while thinking in character in order to play the game, it's too much for me.  If it breaks verisimilitude (e.g., by ruining the continuity of the setting, breaking suspension of disbelief by making the unbelievable happen), it's too much for me.

Quote from: Peregrin;419580My trip to the beach/mountains/whatever last weekend was not a story in-and-of-itself.  I created a story/narrative after-the-fact when I told my friends about it.

Further, if you are trying to create a story, then the quality of the story matters.  If you are not trying to create a story, then the quality of the story may not matter.  If you can't help but create a story by role-playing and story quality doesn't matter, then you don't need special story-game rules to tell stories while role-playing.

(People do all sorts of things for the experience where quality of the story told about the experience often is boring.  People often enthusiastically talk about their vacations by summarizing what they did and it's often boring to listen to because you weren't there.  The same is often true about people talking about their characters and role-playing adventures.  There is no story quality there.)

Quote from: Settembrini;419593...and while gaming, people generated heat with their bodies, and talked. So really, RPGs are about HEAT and TALKING.

Isn't post-modernism wonderful?

I do not know, if the real source of the associated douchebaggery is indeed post-modernism itself. Because, you know, modernism really, really sucked, so basically everything is post-modernism today. But I get it you speak of Starbucks-Zombie (http://dresdencodak.com/2006/12/03/dungeons-and-discourse/) flavour of post-modernism. Happens the Zombies are douchebags 100% of the time.

This is the DENSEST thread in the history of this site, for sure.

Quote from: Omnifray;419565The Forge has come up with this classification of Story First, Story After and Story Now! Obviously, Story Now! is meant to be the one you're supposed to love, hence the sexier-sounding name for that compared to the others (complete with exclamation mark).

I guess that Story First could include extensive metaplot pre-written and railroaded, a la WW according to the Gospel of Pundit [I am not saying that this is how WW games actually go, but how Pundit says they are intended].

Story After is your typical immersive RPG where the "story" (or sequence of events unfolding in the game, if you prefer) emerges through play.

Story Now! is where the participants are actively pushing the game in the direction of a particular kind of story during play. This isn't really something the GM would do on his own, because if it were, why wouldn't he just go the whole hog and do it as Story First? A planned story is better than one you make up on the spot. But if you are doing it collectively obviously the story only comes to life as you actually collaborate, and that's what Shared Narrative Authority storygaming is all about.

Continued below...

I think this is a quite spot-on description.

Quote from: Omnifray;419567And hey presto we can begin to understand the "Conspiracy" Pundit hates so much. It's not a conspiracy at all. It's just totally craptacular fuck-uppery which comes from a woeful failure to empathise with gamers generally. I'm not saying Ron Edwards has no ability at empathy in general. Just that Forge Theory does not reflect any evidence of a serious empathic endeavour.

Again agree. GNS and all that is bullshit because they fail to empathize with the people like us, who like Immersion, and also because most times it shows that the proponents simply had bad GMs. From that, they extrapolate tha all GMing is like that, using anecdotical evidence to make sweeping generalization.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;419612@Sette: Danke fürs Kompliment!

Regarding story and plot... have we found and expressed a common definition yet? If not, let me offer one pulled straight from my old, moldy linguistic textbooks:

Story: the narration of a chronological sequence of events.
Plot: the narration of the causal and logical structure which connects events.

E.M. Forster's brilliant examples:
The king died and then the queen died (story).
The king died and then the queen died of grief (plot).

Using these definitions, traditional roleplaying games NEVER tell a story. In trad games, players use their characters as vehicles to explore the game world and (within limitations) to satisfy their desires (or live out their fantasies).

Only WHEN TALKING ABOUT the game events, it becomes a story.

"Story Games" is actually is misnomer because what they really are is "Plot Games": Players and GMs (if there's any difference between them, often there's none) deliberately "frame scenes" to highlight causal and logical structures within the game.

Brilliant. Kudos for this post. One of the best (and mercifully shortest) in this thread.

Quote from: BWA;419657Some of you guys are really exhausting.

I don't remember seeing so many walls of text, one after the other, in a very long time.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;419828I think you're wrong to say that speech acts are always simultaneously "making things up".

I don't think I said "always". When a player verbally elects an action, generally speaking that verbal election involves an incidental description of the action, contingent on GM acceptance, which usually stands, at least if your dice-rolls succeeds. ("I hit the orc with my sword! I roll... a 5..." "Er, you miss."). Sometimes the player might deliberately embellish his verbal election with purely descriptive elements. ("I'm going to draw my gleaming sword Sting and run that dirty son of a bitch orc through with it.") Then the description is a deliberate purpose of what's said, but the primary purpose is still the verbal election. That's also probably mostly the case for storygamers, which is why any debatable notion of a "story" is still incidental to what they're doing even in their context.

QuoteBut even if I accepted that they are, I'd say that "making things up" isn't always a speech act.

Agreed.

QuoteFrankly, when I declare an action in a game, it just isn't the same as "making up" a bit of fictional action.

True, but this is the difference between equation and inclusion. I do not equate verbal acts with "making things up". But when you perform a verbal act, that may incidentally involve "making things up"; and in an RPG context, IMHO, it generally does. NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS. For instance:- GM - "are you going to attack the orc?" Player "Yes please." Verbal election, arguably no description, job done. Although I suppose you could quibble with that and compare it to:- Player - "Is the room dark and menacing?" GM - "Yes". That's a purely descriptive yes. Doesn't the player's earlier "yes" also at least imply a description, and perhaps on a better analysis incidentally involve an actual description? Even though its primary purpose is clearly verbal election. EDITED TO ADD:- actually, thinking about it, direct speech with no introduction could be said to be pure verbal election / illocutionary act, with no intrinsic element of description --- but even then, a description could be said to be implied.

QuoteThe sense of freedom, constraint, purpose, etc. is completely different.

Agreed. But the element of description incidental to the verbal election doesn't vanish into the ether or disappear in a puff of logic as a result.

QuoteIn short I think if your goal is to understand what other people are doing when they're roleplaying, you're failing.

In short I think that if your goal is to understand what I am SAYING about what other people are doing when they're roleplaying, you're failing.

In short, my view:-

Generally, but not always, as a player playing an RPG what you are doing is verbal election. Generally, but at least arguably not always, verbal elections in an RPG context involve at least an element of contingent description which is incidental to the main purpose of the verbal election, namely to elect an action verbally, or to act-through-speech. "I attack the orc" is a verbal election just like "I hereby agree to the contractual terms you have offered"; both incidentally offer a description of what you are doing.

If we were speaking Pinkwanese, a new language in which there is a completely separate grammatical mood for a verbal election and a description, we would be using the verbal election mood. Just as the imperative "Go to bed!" does not include an incidental description "what you're doing now is going to bed", "I GO! to bed" would not include "what I am doing now is going to bed". BUT the incidental description would still be implicit. Viz.:- "You're going to bed right now!" - grammatically speaking as a matter of form this is in the indicative mood, but substantively it could equally be in effect an imperative. So I'm saying the two kinds of meaning are inherently connected, even if they are not identical, not co-terminous, and having one doesn't ALWAYS mean having the other, nor vice versa.

Or, I could just be disappearing up my own arse. But after you referred me to illocutionary words I felt the pretentious show-off ball was rather in my court :p

Quote from: John Morrow;419857Further, if you are trying to create a story, then the quality of the story matters.  If you are not trying to create a story, then the quality of the story may not matter.  If you can't help but create a story by role-playing and story quality doesn't matter, then you don't need special story-game rules to tell stories while role-playing.

But if you are doing something for the experience, then the quality of the experience matters. Hence it makes sense if SOMEONE at least SUBCONCIOUSLY is pushing the experience in interesting directions. The storygamey leap from there to the notion that the PLAYERS MUST ALL CONSCIOUSLY BE PUSHING THE EXPERIENCE IN INTERESTING DIRECTIONS is a leap too far. But what I'm trying to say is - forgetting about the notion of "story", we can still say that the direction the in-game events go in matters because it affects your enjoyment of the immersive experience. It doesn't need to look like a story, but it needs to feel like a good experience. Even if it's only the GM's subconscious desire to give the players a good experience which makes that happen. But this is an important avenue of thought because it means that we might want to LOOK at some of the storygamers' analysis, and ask ourselves - is there a grain of truth in some of it? Have they hit on SOME viable ways which can make the immersive experience better? Or is everything they're saying counterproductive? I'm not saying that the analysis has to reach one conclusion or the other, but it's a valid topic to investigate.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419669Except that time and time again Forge Storygame Swine have been CAUGHT LYING in threads like this one, and all over the internet; saying one thing that they think will make them sound more reasonable and appeal to the audience they're trying to convert while over on some other website they are saying the exact opposite.  The most egregious example of this was the "Brain damage" affair, where tons of storygamers came out to try to claim that "Edwards didn't mean it" on all the RPG websites, while over on the forge some of those SAME people were saying "You're so right, Ron! I'm totally brain-damaged!".  There are plenty of other examples as well. People on the Storygames website feigning "respect" for Gary Gygax when he died, and trying to claim he was pro-Storygames, while over on the Storygames forum they were making fun of his death in a thread they somehow stupidly didn't think people would see.

They do this kind of shit all the time. They're doing it here, right now.  Storygamers accept the premise that regular RPGs "fail" at telling stories, yet here you have several Forge Swine trying to argue till they're blue in the face that RPGs tell good stories, because it suits them to say this at this moment. On some other thread, somewhere more amenable to their ideology, they'd be trying to convince people that regular RPGs suck ass at story and you need a Storygame to do it right.

RPGPundit

I don't know if you're right because I don't spend a lot of time watching what people post on here and comparing it to what they post on the Big Purple or Storygames or the That-Which-Was-The-Forge-May-It-Rest-In-Peace.

But I think if you want to understand both sides of the argument you have to speak to both sides. And if you want to speak to someone, you should speak to them in their terms, because if you don't they won't understand what you're saying, won't understand what you're asking and won't give you an answer which is fit for purpose. Also, if you don't even KNOW how to speak to them in their terms, you won't understand what they're saying even when they DO give an answer which is fit for purpose, or when you're observing their discussions passively.

It might seem a bit two-faced to come on here and say Immersion This, Immersion That, and then go on Storygames and say How Do We Spice Up The Story. But it's not really a sign of any deep intellectual dishonesty let alone a conspiracy. After all part of the problem isn't just the underlying idealogical difference between the Immersionists and the Storygamers, it's the terminological difference, which, for all its propaganda value to one side or the other and for all its intellectual honesty or dishonesty, is basically semantic.

Saying "How Do We Spice Up The Story" on Storygames may amount to little more than saying "How do we get the events of a roleplaying game to move in more interesting directions?"

I really do suspect that a lot of people who think of themselves as storygamers are primarily roleplaying immersively, with only some element here or there of consciously directing the game's events to make them more interesting, which might all come from the GM. Also a lot of people who think of themselves as roleplayers and play trad games centred around dungeon crawls but who are not committed to their characters at all, don't roleplay immersively and merely consistently use their characters as pawns for an exciting game - especially one based around combat (an easy hack-n-slash trap to fall into) - perhaps not even remembering their characters' in-character names - are not immersive roleplayers, are not really roleplayers at all, and whether they are storygamers or not is another question but to me, IMHO YMMV, they are. I speak from recent experience of playing in such a game which rarely breaks out of its hack-n-slash storygame mode though it is starting to move very slowly in a more interesting, immersive direction now, at last, after much effort on my part, thank God.

One reason why a lot of people think they are storygaming when they are not is the same reason why I thought "game of storytelling" was a good description for a roleplaying game until quite recently, and it's this very simple reason:- a bunch of people sitting around in a circle talking about events in a fictional world involving fictional characters do not bear much obvious outward resemblance to the general public's common experience of  actors playing roles. Superficially, they slightly more resemble people telling stories. The reason for this is the vehicle of expression - namely discourse / verbal election of characters' actions, rather than dramatic acting in the traditional sense of moving around as your character would, speaking in character etc. So, until you really analyse what's going on in the game closely, I think it's a stupidly easy mistake to make to think of roleplaying games as being games of story, because that's what they look like on a superficial inspection to people whose only comparable experiences are of actors playing roles in plays by means of dramatic acting and storytellers telling stories by means of speech / discourse.

Hating on people for that easy mistake is just silly.

Quote from: Omnifray;419917But this is an important avenue of thought because it means that we might want to LOOK at some of the storygamers' analysis, and ask ourselves - is there a grain of truth in some of it? Have they hit on SOME viable ways which can make the immersive experience better? Or is everything they're saying counterproductive? I'm not saying that the analysis has to reach one conclusion or the other, but it's a valid topic to investigate.

No, I think its a waste of time.  Storygamers have plainly and openly said, "Immersion" is an "impossible thing". It either doesn't exist at all, or if it does its meaningless and potentially mentally damaging.  That's a fundamental element of their entire theory. So why the fuck would I go looking for tips about doing immersion from these assholes?
That's like looking for information about racial harmony from the Ku Klux Klan, or getting tips on coming out as a gay man from the Family Research Council.

Let me re-emphasize: THEY HATE IMMERSION AND WANT TO DESTROY IT. So why the fuck would you consider anything they have to say?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;419780I'm getting what he's saying, personally. I've had this happen with some NPCs of mine as well. It's at that point when the NPC really is a personality that is separate from your own, and exists within the context of the setting, with you as GM not knowing everything about the setting itself, like it's blurred by a fog of war and reveals itself as the game evolves, while it seemed like it was already there all the time for you to grasp. It's something I experience regularly with my settings, actually.

I think it is more of a case where you are doing a,b,c,d creating e and because of that you realize that this all leads to x. And it is a surprise because you never thought of x as a possibility before.

I run into this with programming. In my day job I been responsible for maintaining a application that been in continuous development since 1985. (Metal Cutting software).  Periodically I experience this type of moment when a bunch of features that we added over the last couple release cycle come together to allow us to do something completely new.

The same for writing stories, as well running roleplaying games. We don't think of everything at once even with the most methodical approaches. Often midway we gain new insights.

But there is a cost to use the new insight, in software your release date may be pushed back, in stories you may have to go back and rewrite older sections.

RPG in contrast are dynamic and unlike stories you can't go back and do a rewrite. Sure you can call for a reset but... since when that ever went well? The best you can hope for is that the new insight into a character or situations only impacts something that was off-stage at that point. Then using it is not hard as all you doing is re-writing your plot which the players don't see until the events are played out. Continuity is a key element of campaign play.

As for my definition of plot a RPG plot being a plan of actions and events a referee writes up before and during his campaign. It is plan that changes in response to what the players do and to any new insight the referee gains as the campaign unfolds.  The "story" that unfolds is a description of what happened after the players finish playing. Most of the time the stories are dull and uninteresting to any but the participants. But there are moments or even campaigns that turn out to be interesting stories after they are done.

All the story games I seen either would have been scenarios or campaign books in a normal RPG game as they are narrowly focused with laser-like intensity on a particular plot.  Or they engage in mechanics that try to manipulate the meta game of RPGs and wind feeling like a poor version of RPGs like Amber, Rifts, Torg where reality manipulation is part of the point of the game.

I played with Whimsy Cards, Dragonlance, VtM and seen the whole progression unfold. Played with Ars Magica's troupe play and so on. Each cycle of the stuff seem to forgot the problems encountered by the previous. Dragonlance was a massive railroad. There are good reasons why most players only play a single character getting away from the multiple characters per player that many did for OD&D. Whimsy Card wound up being a distraction and put away.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419926THEY HATE IMMERSION AND WANT TO DESTROY IT.

I don't know if "they" hate immersion.

What I noticed, though, is that all the plot games I have played and GMed make it extremely hard to reach immersion because most of their rules mechanisms force the players to stay on the metaplane.

Years ago, I compared plot games to Brechtian epic theater (qualities: keep a "critical distance" to the character, analyze his feelings). Trad roleplaying games are a lot like Aristotle's dramatical theater: immediate and character-immersive.

That being said: Like Pundit, I seriously doubt Forge games can give me better advice on acting and immersion than tried and true manuals like Stanislavski's or Johnstone's. In the past, I picked one to three impro warm-up games and played them with my group, just to flex their roleplaying muscles. Worked like a charm, every time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419926No, I think its a waste of time.  Storygamers have plainly and openly said, "Immersion" is an "impossible thing". It either doesn't exist at all, or if it does its meaningless and potentially mentally damaging.  That's a fundamental element of their entire theory. So why the fuck would I go looking for tips about doing immersion from these assholes?
That's like looking for information about racial harmony from the Ku Klux Klan, or getting tips on coming out as a gay man from the Family Research Council.

Let me re-emphasize: THEY HATE IMMERSION AND WANT TO DESTROY IT. So why the fuck would you consider anything they have to say?

RPGPundit

Are you out to win your Godwin? Cos you're getting close.

What if some of them have been brainwashed into thinking that they hate immersion and want to destroy it, but what they are actually in fact doing at the table frequently includes immersive roleplay, it's just that they don't understand it themselves? They may have come up with all sorts of devices and contrivances to make their immersive roleplay go in more interesting directions. We could look at them for inspiration. The important thing, of course, is to look at them with a critical, analytical, independent mind, and not to be taken in by the same propaganda which has deceived so many of them.

Even the ones who genuinely DO hate immersion properly understood - might have come up with particular devices and contrivances for pushing "story" in interesting directions, which can be adapted / copied / used for inspiration to come up with devices and contrivances for pushing in-game events in interesting directions in ways which are not to the detriment of immersion.

There are so many of them being vocal on websites and in the RPG community that if you try to cut out what they say altogether from the discourse you're involved in, you might be missing out on a good proportion of the ideas being generated. Even flawed ideas (with some potential seed of interesting insight lurking beneath the flaws) can be worth considering because they might set your mind going in interesting ideas which lead you to better ideas.

You're arguing nonsense. I don't go to see luddites on the off chance they might have useful instructions for setting up my computer.  You don't look at vegetarian restaurants in the hopes they might have really good barbecued pork.

Its just a total backward-thinking mentality.  Yes, I could look at the pacifist movement for hints on how to run better military campaigns, but chances are that the effort and twisting around of concepts is not going to be worth it.

Again, WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO THIS? There are tons of gaming experts who DO believe in Immersion, who do not, as the Forge Swine do, believe that it doesn't exist, it cannot be achieved, and that people who try are either just deluded or mentally ill. You could look at those guys, and see how they do immersion.  When it comes out next year, you can read my RPGPundit's Politically Incorrect Guide to GMing, and I promise you it will have lots of stuff about Immersion, that I hope people will find useful, because I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN IMMERSION AND DON'T WANT TO DESTROY IT.

Why the fuck would you try to get "tips" on immersion from people who despise immersion? Its just ridiculous behaviour and leads me to think that at this point you are just "arguing for the sake of arguing".

RPGPundit

That's more generally what I dislike about these kinds of discussions. It always feels like there's no real point to it besides arguing for the sake of arguing. Goalposts change constantly, people argue some things, then their opposites, and it really is all drowned into such constant verbiage as to make it really look like wankery for the sake of it.

My dad once told me: if you can't explain your core idea with a simple sentence, or a bunch of them, you might have a problem with that core idea, to begin with. I think this is very true.

Quote from: Omnifray;419917But if you are doing something for the experience, then the quality of the experience matters. Hence it makes sense if SOMEONE at least SUBCONCIOUSLY is pushing the experience in interesting directions.

First, I agree that the quality of the experience matters.  But the problem I have with what you are saying is the idea that this means the experience should be pushed in interesting directions.  That's not true.

When taking a vacation trip, the experience often matters.  There are (at least) two different ways that one can take a vacation that's an interesting experience (ignoring, for this discussion, purposely boring vacations for the purpose of relaxing and escape).  

The first is to sign up for a tour that will make sure you visit one notable destination after another and cover the good parts of wherever it is you are going.  You'll visit things like museums, cathedrals, towers, historical sites, and so on and won't spend your day on a beach, in a park, shopping in mundane department stores, and so on.  Someone will be pushing your experience in interesting directions to make sure you aren't doing anything boring, only doing boring stuff when absolutely necessary (e.g., traveling, either lunch, etc.).  There are people who love that sort of vacation but also people who hate them because they are predictable, repeatable, and what the tour guide thinks is interesting is not always interesting, especially with repetition.  I've heard more than one person come back from a European vacation tell me that they were sick of visiting cathedrals.  But there is a second way to take a vacation.

The second way is to pick an interesting place to go that's likely to provide interesting experiences and go there without an agenda or itinerary and simply explore the destination.  This is how I take vacations.  It's also how I live my life.  When I worked in Manhattan, I'd walk different routes to get places to see what was there.  I lived in Japan because I volunteered to go there for my company.  I saw very few touristy sights there but loved to just walk around Tokyo and explore.  I don't need someone to push me into interesting experiences.  I can find them myself, especially when I'm in an inherently interesting location like Hawaii, Manhattan, or Tokyo.  In Orlando, I enjoy Sea World more than a lot of the amusement parks because you can walk around and do your own thing rather than spending the day waiting on lines to have planned interesting experiences on rides.

And, yes, you can mix the two a bit.  When in Australia and Hawaii, my wife and I took hour and day tours to see or experience certain things (e.g, a submarine ride in Hawaii and a plane trip to the Big Island and tour there), but we retained control over the rest of our vacation.

I like my role-playing games the way I like my vacations.  I want to create a motivated character in an interesting setting who will find adventure in that setting without constantly being pushed or dragged into it.  The GM can offer adventure hooks that, like a day tour, my character might choose to take or not take.  But I don't want the GM to be a tour guide who pushes me from one museum or cathedral after another.  Give me an interesting character in an interesting environment and I'll naturalistically find adventure.  Being pushed through interesting events in a game, to me, is like being dragged by a tour guide to one cathedral after another on a tour of Europe.  The first one or two times might be OK but repetition makes it awful.

And this is one area that most role-playing theory handles badly.  It doesn't make a distinction between the way a player and GM create a setting or character or set up a campaign and the way the GM runs the game and the players play it.  There is a huge difference between the two.  Plenty of people expect the GM to create an interesting setting and the players to create interesting characters (which is why most role-playing games focus on action careers for characters) but a lot of them confine those choices to the set-up.

Quote from: Omnifray;419917The storygamey leap from there to the notion that the PLAYERS MUST ALL CONSCIOUSLY BE PUSHING THE EXPERIENCE IN INTERESTING DIRECTIONS is a leap too far.

I think there is something else at work beyond just creating interesting experiences.  The focus is entirely different, and trying to frame what some people want as an experience is as inaccurate as trying to frame what I want as a creative agenda.  Some people care about the journey and others care about the destination.  What I think motivates a lot of story-gaming is the same thing that motivates a lot of diceless gaming (and Theatrix combined both), which is a desire to control the destination, regardless of what that means to the journey.  The problem with dice an naturalistic games is that they are unpredictable and don't guarantee a certain type of outcome.  The entire party can die during an encounter.  The PCs can fail to save the NPC.  And sometimes it can be about the experience.  There are people who don't want to play through the Gwen Stacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Stacy) experience.  So what they do is create mechanics or techniques that let them guide the game away from certain types of outcome that they don't want or even toward a specific outcome that they do want, thus the obsession with control over the game and framing it only in terms of player and GM.  

In many traditional games, the players and GM both defer to the rules.  One of the main attractions of naturalistic games is that they do, in fact, produce the Gwen Stacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Stacy) experience from time to time.  Even if it's not always fun to play through, it's a critical part of the overall experience of verisimilitude and making the character seem "real".

Quote from: Omnifray;419917But what I'm trying to say is - forgetting about the notion of "story", we can still say that the direction the in-game events go in matters because it affects your enjoyment of the immersive experience. It doesn't need to look like a story, but it needs to feel like a good experience.

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean that the GM or players need to deliberately push the in-game events in interesting directions to keep the experience good.  Yes, there is a certain "good part" element to skipping over things like bathroom breaks and meals but there can be some value in playing through those, too.  For example, in the last D&D game I played through, we played through breakfast because there was interesting role-playing going on there about fairly mundane stuff.  And at least acknowledging things like bathroom breaks, like sleep, can create interesting role-playing opportunities, particularly if stepping out for a quick discreet break isn't an option where the characters are.

Quote from: Omnifray;419917Even if it's only the GM's subconscious desire to give the players a good experience which makes that happen. But this is an important avenue of thought because it means that we might want to LOOK at some of the storygamers' analysis, and ask ourselves - is there a grain of truth in some of it? Have they hit on SOME viable ways which can make the immersive experience better? Or is everything they're saying counterproductive? I'm not saying that the analysis has to reach one conclusion or the other, but it's a valid topic to investigate.

I think there certainly is some value in the Forge Narrativist commentary and
games for my style of play with regard to how characters and situations are set up.  For example, I think the mechanics of Dogs in the Vineyard (which seem like a glorified game of Yahtzee to me) are worthless to the way I play but what the game does to set up an interesting town and characters that have to deal with it could work just fine how I play.  In fact, I've said that if a lot of the Forge commentary had been framed as GMing advice and focused on setting up characters and adventures prone to be interesting rather than in-game dynamics and new rules systems that changed the rules from representing things in the setting to metagame story concerns, that they would have been a lot more valuable.  But until game theory can handle and address the difference between the set-up of the setting and characters to be interesting and tweaking the game during play to guarantee that the game is constantly interesting, I think a lot of people aren't going to get value from the conclusions.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;419938I don't know if "they" hate immersion.

What I noticed, though, is that all the plot games I have played and GMed make it extremely hard to reach immersion because most of their rules mechanisms force the players to stay on the metaplane.

I think your observation is true -- and I think that the *hate* comes in because I believe the following:

1) Immersion is a very common goal for roleplayers
2) The story-games inhibit it for most people

therefore

3) Story games simply aren't as popular as immersive, traditional RPGs

I think #3 leads to dislike of immersion and in extreme cases denial that it exists, characterization of immersion as a primary goal as immature or selfish, or even descriptions of it as some kind of mental pathology

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419926Let me re-emphasize: THEY HATE IMMERSION AND WANT TO DESTROY IT. So why the fuck would you consider anything they have to say?

I think a lot of them simply don't understand it (which can also motivate a certain type of person to want to destroy something or at least deny it exists).  Most people naturally assume that other people think roughly the way that they do, which is why people who don't have problems remembering things ask people who do to "just remember" things, why normal people assume that they can appeal to the conscience of a psychopath even though they don't have one, why so many people (wrongly) believe that if people understand each other that they'll automatically agree with each other, and why people tend to assume that other role-players play for the same reason that they do, even if they say that they don't.

Quote from: CRKrueger;419808You could try doing something other then the standard narrativist exchange that Benoist listed.

It is instructive to note that, in order to make the "swine" character seem so hostile and divorced from reality, Benoist was forced to create imaginary dialogue.

That is to say, in 100+ pages of the Forge thread and 35+ pages of this thread, filled with argument, Benoist could not find a single actual real quote to use to show where these terrible "swine" tried to change his gaming, despite the face that he did not want it changed.

Fascinating stuff.

Quote from: John Morrow;419846Another player doing this doesn't necessarily bother me.  What bothers me is a system that demands I do things like this when I'd rather be thinking in character.  

Sure thing, Which is why I used D&D as an example. (I have noticed, many times, that when you try to talk about these concepts using traditional games, people are very quick to leap to all these "story games" filled with rules they hate, when the original question was not about those games.)

As for me, no matter what game I'm playing, D&D or The Mountain Witch, I like it when everyone contributes. It makes my games better. I like to play with creative, engaged people, and, for me, sticking to one person's ideas all the time is not as interesting as using everyone's ideas.

All this fetishizing of the GM's "ultimate authority" and players "asking permission" is just not my thing.

Now, if you don't like playing that way, it's no skin off my nose. Play as you wish, and may you enjoy many games.

Quote from: Benoist;419946That's more generally what I dislike about these kinds of discussions. It always feels like there's no real point to it besides arguing for the sake of arguing.

This is perfectly true.

Quote from: estar;419934I think it is more of a case where you are doing a,b,c,d creating e and because of that you realize that this all leads to x. And it is a surprise because you never thought of x as a possibility before.

I run into this with programming. In my day job I been responsible for maintaining a application that been in continuous development since 1985. (Metal Cutting software).  Periodically I experience this type of moment when a bunch of features that we added over the last couple release cycle come together to allow us to do something completely new.

I role-play (ideally) by thinking in character and I'm a computer programmer.  I understand what you are talking about in programming and it's not the same thing as being surprised by a character in role-playing in my experience.  It's not a momentary insight, decision, or "Aha!" but can be a whole package of emotions and choices that can last for hours that I might never understand unless I analyze them.  

The strongest example was a character I was playing that was experiencing paranoia and fear that I totally didn't understand until I psychoanalyzed the character and figured out what was going on.  I played the whole game session with the character behaving that way and doing some pretty nutty things that didn't make any sense to me at the time, but I just went with it.  I didn't understand it until I looked into the character after the game and figured out what was going on and may never have understood it if I didn't go looking for an explanation.  It's not a moment of inspiration but a character running in a virtual machine in my head taking on a life of it's own.  One independent thread of thoughts surprising the main one.

Quote from: estar;419934All the story games I seen either would have been scenarios or campaign books in a normal RPG game as they are narrowly focused with laser-like intensity on a particular plot.

Yes, a lot of the story-games would have been perfectly compatible with traditional role-playing games if they were framed as adventures, settings, or even set-up advice rather than entire games.

Quote from: estar;419934There are good reasons why most players only play a single character getting away from the multiple characters per player that many did for OD&D.

One thing that is interesting is when people assume that traditional gamers play the way that they play because they don't know any better when, in fact, quite a few have experimented in all sorts of ways.  My earliest games had no GM and players playing multiple characters.  Early on, I experimented with minimalist homebrew systems and homebrew systems that worked on story-logic (e.g., differentiating the hero from extras), etc.  I know exactly why I prefer the way I game to the alternatives because I've tried them and there are good reasons for playing the way my group and I do.

Quote from: BWA;419953It is instructive to note that, in order to make the "swine" character seem so hostile and divorced from reality, Benoist was forced to create imaginary dialogue.

That is to say, in 100+ pages of the Forge thread and 35+ pages of this thread, filled with argument, Benoist could not find a single actual real quote to use to show where these terrible "swine" tried to change his gaming, despite the face that he did not want it changed.

Fascinating stuff.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence.  I posted quotes and links to a longer discussion in the other thread where Ron Edward and Paul Czege both denigrate other play preferences (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24):

Ron: "No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism."

Paul: "But I think Simulationists tend to live in a state of denial."

Ron: "However, the "real" Simulationist isn't really interested in Narrativism at all - wait a minute. Does this person actually exist? Is it possible that this is just an abstraction, and that Simulationism per se is a historical artifact of the role-playing activity? I'm not willing to write off the "is"-ness of such a prominent and distinct behavior-type so quickly ... but it is also true that most Simulationists I know tend to evolve into either Gamists or Narrativists ..."

(The "evolution" argument is a classic.  What it basically implies is that if you are an honest, descent, and intelligent sort of person than you should want your style of play to change to what's being advocated.)

Paul: "I think actual Simulationist RPG players have unconsciously realized that they want story elements. They are tainted by that in a way that Gamists are not. And it's a slippery slope for them. Ultimately, they either overcome the fear of their contribution being irrelevantized in the game by plot beyond their control, the fear that the lot-o-rules phenomenon allows them to cope with. And they become Narrativists, or they overcome their need to compete with the system rather than competing with other players and they become Gamists. Or I guess they maintain their difficult position as a dedicated Simulationist by living with a high degree of defensiveness. Either of the two, becoming a Narrativist or becoming a Gamist is dependent on the Simulationist learning to trust the GM."

(So of course we have things to "learn" and need to be "saved" from ourselves.  It's the Narrativist's Burden, apparently.)

Now, you can argue that this was from 2001 but the infamous "brain damage" claims from years later cover the same basic ground.  After all, shouldn't you stop people from playing games if you believe that those games literally damage their brains?  

You can also argue that this isn't an explicit attempt to change my particular group's play but it reflects a mindset to change the hobby to move it in a direction hostile to the type of game I enjoy toward a game that looks more like what story-gamers advocate.  As a prime example, I offer the fact that I own hundreds if not thousands of dollars of D&D 3/3.5 material but do not even own the core books for 4th Edition because of very specific shifts in style that seem to be the result of Forge theory influence on Mearls and possibly others.  So it influences how useful published RPG material is to me and my group.

Quote from: BWA;419953As for me, no matter what game I'm playing, D&D or The Mountain Witch, I like it when everyone contributes. It makes my games better. I like to play with creative, engaged people, and, for me, sticking to one person's ideas all the time is not as interesting as using everyone's ideas.

And this is exactly the sort of comment that generates hostility because of what it implies.  Everyone contributing makes games better for you.  If it doesn't make it better for me, does that mean I'm doing something wrong?  You "play with creative, engaged people".  Does that mean I play with dull and disinterested people if my group and I don't share your preferences?  Almost everyone I role-play with has GMed games.  One GM is a CTO and another has written music soundtracks for the games he's run.  The D&D game that I played in a while back that I've been mentioning was run by a published writer, one of the authors of Castle Whiterock.  He had the entire setting so planned out that we could walk up to any NPC and he knew exactly who they were and how they related to the setting and other NPCs.  So who, exactly, do you think I've been playing with?

So what does "creative" or "engaged" have to do with anything unless you are looking to stick your nose in the air and say, "If only you and the people you play with were as sophisticated as my group and I am, you'd understand and appreciate what I'm talking about and embrace the way I do things."  

Yeah, what annoys people about story-game advocates isn't only that they are trying to change the way other people pay but that they can't seem to help coming across as arrogant elitists who think they are better than everyone else.

Quote from: BWA;419953All this fetishizing of the GM's "ultimate authority" and players "asking permission" is just not my thing.

So it's "fetishizing", is it?  Something that only a "brain damaged" knuckle dragger who is in denial or doesn't know what he'd really like would show any resistance to, right?  Why the quotes around "asking permission" as if there is something wrong with it?

Quote from: BWA;419953Now, if you don't like playing that way, it's no skin off my nose. Play as you wish, and may you enjoy many games.

If it's no skin off your nose, then why do you have it stuck up in the air?  Maybe you are simply reacting this way in response to what you see as looking down at what you enjoy doing, but this is the attitude that those people think justifies their attitude and round-and-round we go.  If you really believe that other people should do whatever they enjoy without value judgement, then stuff like "I like to play with creative, engaged people" (...unlike you) isn't the way to do it.

Quote from: John Morrow;419967Everyone contributing makes games better for you.  If it doesn't make it better for me, does that mean I'm doing something wrong?  

I don't think so. Clearly you *think* that I said so, since you went on for half a page of insulted outrage. However, as you note, I said that everyone contributing makes my games better. The word choice was quite deliberate.

John, I'm sure you play with awesome people. And they way you like to play is that the GM creates the world, and the players respond to it. And that's what you enjoy.  And so that's what you should do.

This thing that happens here constantly where someone says "Hey, I like games that work like so. They are fun for me!" and then an army of people rise up in outrage  and anger to say "What? How dare you insult me! How dare you insult all God-fearing gamers with your despicable secret codes!". That thing? That thing you just did? That thing is lame.

Quote from: BWA;419980I don't think so. Clearly you *think* that I said so, since you went on for half a page of insulted outrage. However, as you note, I said that everyone contributing makes my games better. The word choice was quite deliberate.

What was the whole point of this exercise?

I quite clearly and deliberate (in all caps, even) said, "I DO NOT WANT NARRATIVE AUTHORITY."  Rather than accept that claim, you started this thread to pick a fight with it, arguing:

"So, here's the thing. You do have narrative authority, even when playing the most traditional of games."

You didn't ask what I meant.  You didn't look for any middle ground.  You told me I was wrong and tried to tell me that something I know I have no real interest in having is "a BIG part of what makes RPGs what they are".  Further, you've pretty largely ignored addressing the substantive points I've made about why I think your claim is wrong.  Do you want to debate the point or comment about the tone of the debate?

Quote from: BWA;419980John, I'm sure you play with awesome people. And they way you like to play is that the GM creates the world, and the players respond to it. And that's what you enjoy.  And so that's what you should do.

Then why did you pick a fight over a fairly simple and straight-forward claim about what I enjoy?  What was your goal in starting this thread?  What did you hope to get out of it?

Quote from: BWA;419980This thing that happens here constantly where someone says "Hey, I like games that work like so. They are fun for me!" and then an army of people rise up in outrage  and anger to say "What? How dare you insult me! How dare you insult all God-fearing gamers with your despicable secret codes!". That thing? That thing you just did? That thing is lame.

You mean like me saying, "I DO NOT WANT NARRATIVE AUTHORITY," and you starting a thread to say that I'm wrong and I have no choice but to exercise narrative authority, whether I want it or not, so I don't really know what I'm talking about?  That sort of thing?  And that's not lame?

Quote from: John Morrow;419957I role-play (ideally) by thinking in character and I'm a computer programmer.  I understand what you are talking about in programming and it's not the same thing as being surprised by a character in role-playing in my experience.  It's not a momentary insight, decision, or "Aha!" but can be a whole package of emotions and choices that can last for hours that I might never understand unless I analyze them.  

Sure, I said it was similar. With programming you solved the problem and move on to the next one.  With roleplaying characters the human element is involved so the same moment leads to a different kind of satisfaction. But broadly speaking both involve the same sequence of events. The accumulation of details lead to insight not foreseen which in turn lead to.... and so on.

Quote from: John Morrow;419957The strongest example was a character I was playing that was experiencing paranoia and fear that I totally didn't understand until I psychoanalyzed the character and figured out what was going on.  

Well it not paranoia if they are actually out the get you ;)

On a more serious note, what you said wouldn't surprise me. Part of doing immersion well is that players react to their circumstances in a natural way. What people forget mostly that there hardly ever just one "natural" way of responding. Each choice feeds on the previous choices and all of the sudden you may have something you didn't expect. And this kind of surprise is fun for many.

If you had perfect recall you probably could have backtrack and see what you did that led to you roleplaying a paranoid character.

Plus what I am saying may sound coldly deterministic however it all hindsight and after the fact. You won't be able to ever replicate the initial conditions that led you to roleplay a paranoid character. Now that you are of aware of what you did you then analyze it and add it to your storehouse of "bits" to use when you make up another character.

That's a fair point. The tone does bug me, because I feel like I see people, yourself included, looking hard for insult where none is intended, and focusing on THAT a lot, but a) I'm sure I'm contributing to the fighty-ness, and b) if I don't like the tone, I should post elsewhere.

Quote from: John Morrow;419983You didn't ask what I meant.  You didn't look for any middle ground.  You told me I was wrong and tried to tell me that something I know I have no real interest in having is "a BIG part of what makes RPGs what they are".  

Okay. I do think you're wrong about having no narrative authority.

But I don't think you're wrong because you're not smart, or because you don't understand RPGs, or because I'm a more highly evolved gamer because of some shit Ron Edwards said on the internet seven years ago.

I think you're wrong on narrow, definitional grounds. That is to say, you're not really even "wrong", we're just disagreeing on what those words mean.
I post a big chunk of text, and you post a big chunk of text, and we're both perfectly correct, we're just not agreeing on the basic definitions.

And, really, the internet is not the place for those kinds of discussions, because it turns into fighting.

Quote from: BWA;419985I think you're wrong on narrow, definitional grounds. That is to say, you're not really even "wrong", we're just disagreeing on what those words mean.

OK.  I'll bite.  Why do you think it's accurate and/or insightful to refer to the player declaring their intent for what their character is doing "authority" if the GM can say "no" and cancel their statement and they consider their own statements provisional pending approval (active or passive) from the GM and or the results of a die roll or rule application?  I'll agree on calling the statements that enter the "shared imaginary space" the "narrative" of the game but on what basis is declaring intent exercising "authority" over that "narrative"?  I can think of no analogous example where I'd equate a declaration of intent pending approval to be "authority" and distinction, itself, is pretty fundamental to the point I was making and the difference between a traditional game and a story game.  

Further, I don't understand the point of trying to equate what a player and GM both do in a traditional role-playing game by calling both "narrative authority" when they are not really the same thing at all.  Why isn't it more accurate to describe what the GM, alone, does as "narrative authority" and describe what the players do differently?  I think I've seen more than one person say that they'd be fine with that.

Quote from: BWA;419985I post a big chunk of text, and you post a big chunk of text, and we're both perfectly correct, we're just not agreeing on the basic definitions.

I hate to say it again but this is the post-modernism thing, too.  It's all the same.  It's all correct.  There is no right and wrong or good and evil.  What the players and GM do is the same.  We both mean the same thing.  If we both understood each other properly, we'd really agree with each other.  There is no objective truth.  That's the post-modernism mindset.  Seriously.  And it's nonsense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419944You're arguing nonsense.
...
Its just ridiculous behaviour and leads me to think that at this point you are just "arguing for the sake of arguing".

All I can say is as a matter of practical experience I did read into the whole GNS thing and, having now rejected pretty much all of it, I guess being completely fair to Ron Edwards, I still feel that I understand more about RPGs as a result of having read his steaming pile of crap than I understood about them beforehand. Not saying it didn't have me confused for a while. It might not work for everyone. Having said all that, I guess there's only so much time in the world and from now on it would probably be largely better for me to spend it reading stuff by people who, as you say, do actually give a shit about immersion, ya know, given that it's the real reason why we're playing these games at all, most of us, and probably most "storygamers" too if they really psychoanalysed themselves.

Quote from: John Morrow;419998Why isn't it more accurate to describe what the GM, alone, does as "narrative authority" and describe what the players do differently?  

In the Immersionist's world,

GM's Narrative Authority = 100%

Player's Narrative Authority = 0%

Everyone happy now?

Quote from: John Morrow;419998I hate to say it again but this is the post-modernism thing, too.  It's all the same.  It's all correct.  There is no right and wrong or good and evil.  What the players and GM do is the same.  We both mean the same thing.  If we both understood each other properly, we'd really agree with each other.  There is no objective truth.  That's the post-modernism mindset.  Seriously.  And it's nonsense.

Thinking that people might be divided by semantics is not the same as thinking that there is no objective truth. I'm a firm believer in objective truth. And I frequently see people on this thread misunderstanding each other. Possibly not as frequently as I think, but frequently none the less.

Quote from: Omnifray;420018In the Immersionist's world,

GM's Narrative Authority = 100%

Player's Narrative Authority = 0%

Everyone happy now?

My guess is that no, not everyone's going to be happy. I'm arguing there's not such thing as a "narrative" in my games*, for instance, same thing with the Pundit and others, from what I understand, while John denies the "authority" part of the equation.

So really, I don't think what you're addressing here really is the issue(s) at hand.

* i.e. what I'm arguing really is:
GM's Narrative authority: 0%
Player's Narrative authority: 0%
Because there is no narrative to begin with.

How about:

GM Authority: 100%
Player control of their character's intent: 100%, subject to GM Authority

That seems to work in every RPG I've ever played.

GM's control over the world emulation: 100%
Players control over their characters' intent: 100%

In case of conflicts between the two, GM's call wins.

Quote from: Benoist;420026GM's control over the world emulation: 100%
Players control over their characters' intent: 100%

In case of conflicts between the two, GM's call wins.

That's how I've always played, with one caveat: the GM must abide by the "authority" of the dice.

Quote from: Omnifray;420018In the Immersionist's world,

GM's Narrative Authority = 100%

Player's Narrative Authority = 0%

When people wave "Narrative Authority" like that they are using it to escape the consequences of a dumb-ass decision and whining about it.

From your various posts you have no conception of how a immersive sandbox campaign works.

Quote from: Omnifray;420019Thinking that people might be divided by semantics is not the same as thinking that there is no objective truth. I'm a firm believer in objective truth. And I frequently see people on this thread misunderstanding each other. Possibly not as frequently as I think, but frequently none the less.

Yeah, I'm with you there. If I were to sit down and play with most of the posters here, I think we'd find areas of disagreement, but not this "YOU ARE A CUNT" crazy animosity stuff. That's the internet talking.

Quote from: John Morrow;419998Why do you think it's accurate and/or insightful to refer to the player declaring their intent for what their character is doing "authority" if the GM can say "no" and cancel their statement and they consider their own statements provisional pending approval (active or passive) from the GM and or the results of a die roll or rule application?

Because I can't quite believe that in any game, no matter how traditional, every single thing a player says is "provisional pending approval".

Another imaginary example:

Brian (GM): Okay, so the king is furious. He demands to know why you entered the mine.
Nate (player): I tell him that we are seeking the enchanted chalice to destroy the lich-king, and that he would do well to aid, rather than hinder us. I stand up and thunder at him, Aragorn-style.
Brian (GM): No, you don't do that. You start crying. You tell him you're a treasure thief. He laughs at you.

In any normal game (again, traditional games only) Nate's response to the GM's question would have been totally valid. It's his character, he gets to say what his character says to the king. That is to say, he has the authority to narrate his character's response.

And the GM's response? Yes, it's dick-ish, but it's also wrong in a fundamental way. It's not a role-playing game in a meaningful sense if the player lacks that authority.

Now, John, if you're telling me that you think a GM does indeed have the fundamental right to do that, and the player's only recourse is to not play with that dude anymore, then we really are further apart on this shit than I think.

Mind you, the question isn't "Is the GM a jerk?" or "Would you do that as a GM?". The question is "Does the player have to accept that total lack of control as a fundamental aspect of role-playing?"

Quote from: John Morrow;419998Further, I don't understand the point of trying to equate what a player and GM both do in a traditional role-playing game by calling both "narrative authority" when they are not really the same thing at all.

Because I think they are the same thing. I think narrative authority is a dial that can be set really far back towards the GM, are so far forward that there is no GM. But it comes down to who gets to say what happens, and have it be accepted as in-game truth.

Quote from: Benoist;420026GM's control over the world emulation: 100%
Players control over their characters' intent: 100%

If I were the humorless Forge evangelist PUndit believes me to be, I'd get all quibbly about #1.

But I think lots of people would agree with this. And I think #2 represents narrative authority.

How can it not? There is nothing happening in the world of the game except the stuff we SAY is happening.

Quote from: BWA;420042Brian (GM): Okay, so the king is furious. He demands to know why you entered the mine.
Nate (player): I tell him that we are seeking the enchanted chalice to destroy the lich-king, and that he would do well to aid, rather than hinder us. I stand up and thunder at him, Aragorn-style.
Brian (GM): No, you don't do that. You start crying. You tell him you're a treasure thief. He laughs at you.

Ridiculously bad example, because, for one thing, the player is summarizing in third person what he's saying, instead of actually saying it.  If that's what you call being in character, then no wonder you think the term narrative applies.

As for the rest, again ridiculous, but lets roll with it.  So the GM is an ass of that level, so you tell him you think it's lame that he took over your character like that for no reason and you vote with your feet if he tells you to sit down and shut up.

No gaming system can institute social control, or cure bad GMing, that is probably the most damaging idea to come out of Forgism.  Abuse of authority does not make the authority itself dysfunctional.

Quote from: BWA;420042And the GM's response? Yes, it's dick-ish, but it's also wrong in a fundamental way. It's not a role-playing game in a meaningful sense if the player lacks that authority.

Nope, you're as wrong as you can possibly be.  The fact that the game exchange you listed sucks has 0% to do with lack of player authority, it has 100% to do with bad GMing.  Again, the biggest mistake the Forge made, was assuming that bad GMing pointed to a fundamental flaw in the traditional GM/player relationship.

Quote from: BWA;420042Now, John, if you're telling me that you think a GM does indeed have the fundamental right to do that, and the player's only recourse is to not play with that dude anymore, then we really are further apart on this shit than I think.

We really are further apart on this shit then you think. (Although you could always talk to him before you left, but whatever.)

Quote from: BWA;420044How can it not? There is nothing happening in the world of the game except the stuff we SAY is happening.

Does the fact that my character in Neverwinter Nights only exists as a set of variables somehow give me authority over the scripts (as in, code) in the game?  I am moving my character utilizing the code, but I do not have authority over it.  I don't say "I'm exercising my authority over the game application", I say "I'm moving my character to the corner of the room."  

Not that I have a problem with narrative authority in certain contexts, but it's really only one way to look at it.  Whether or not it's narrated is irrelevant to most of the people around here -- I've already accepted the game-world as an actuality, even if it's just a made-up place.

Quote from: BWA;420044There is nothing happening in the world of the game except the stuff we SAY is happening.

That... is very, very wrong. Pretty much the antithesis of what you need to understand, as a matter of fact, to achieve emulation/immersion. Cue the idea of finding out stuff about the NPC that you didn't know before, but that was always there in the world for you to see, and just hadn't experienced while role playing him before.

If you start with the assumption that nothing happens in the game world beyond what you say is happening, then your world will automatically fail in terms of emulation and immersion, because it will never be able to become a world-in-motion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;420050As for the rest, again ridiculous, but lets roll with it.  So the GM is an ass of that level, so you tell him you think it's lame that he took over your character like that for no reason and you vote with your feet if he tells you to sit down and shut up.

We both agree that this is bad GMing, and I agree with you that NO RULES can fix that. More to the point, I'm not advocating any particular rule-set, despite the fact that everyone seems to think I'm secretly trying to sell you all copies of My Life With Master.

But let's look at the fundamental act here. Asked for his response to an NPC, a player gives it, and - according to the theory being advanced here - it is not valid until the GM "approves" it.

You're saying that if I'm playing D&D with my friends, I don't even get to say what my character says? The GM can over-rule me, tell me my character says something else altogether, and this is CORRECT, but not sporting? A mere matter of bad GMing.

To me, it is obvious that, given two possible realities in the fiction we are sharing (the character defies the king vs the character cries), one is clearly the right one. The one that "happened" in our game. And it's not the one the GM insisted on.

If you see it otherwise, and that's how you play, I can't argue with you. But I think most gamers would consider this unusual.

As Benoist said, it seems generally accepted that a player gets to control his character.

Quote from: BWA;420042Brian (GM): Okay, so the king is furious. He demands to know why you entered the mine.
Nate (player): I tell him that we are seeking the enchanted chalice to destroy the lich-king, and that he would do well to aid, rather than hinder us. I stand up and thunder at him, Aragorn-style.
Brian (GM): No, you don't do that. You start crying. You tell him you're a treasure thief. He laughs at you.

Yep, sucks when you didn't know you failed your save against Zone of Truth.
i.e. yes ANYTHING is "provisional only".

Quote from: Benoist;420055If you start with the assumption that nothing happens in the game world beyond what you say is happening, then your world will automatically fail in terms of emulation and immersion, because it will never be able to become a world-in-motion.

This is interesting stuff, and probably deserves a new thread.

But, yeah, I think you're wrong here. And wrong in a huge, glaring, obvious way. Unless you are speaking metaphorically.

Because nothing whatsoever happens in our games except the stuff we say happens. That's just the nature of reality. A game world can seem very real to us, but it isn't real.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;420062Yep, sucks when you didn't know you failed your save against Zone of Truth.

No, I'm not talking about that kind of stuff. I'm talking about straight-up, routine gameplay.

Take it as understood that the GM has no secret here. There's no spell, no Zone of Truth, no doppelganger.

That's important to get to the idea we're talking about.

Quote from: BWA;420064Because nothing whatsoever happens in our games except the stuff we say happens. That's just the nature of reality. A game world can seem very real to us, but it isn't real.

Nope. You are wrong in a huge, glaring, obvious way. This is not the nature of reality you describe. Only what you assume it is.

Quote from: BWA;420064Because nothing whatsoever happens in our games except the stuff we say happens. That's just the nature of reality. A game world can seem very real to us, but it isn't real.

I'll actually one-up on my last post. If you actually believe this, like, not for the sake of arguing, mind you, but you really believe that nothing whatsoever happens in the game world except the stuff you say at a game table, and have always believed this while playing a game, you've never actually role played, as in, immersed yourself in a game world, and actually have never experienced a role playing game.

Yeah. That statement of yours is that wrong, to me.

Quote from: Benoist;420066This is not the nature of reality you describe. Only what you assume it is.

You lost me there.

Again, I assume we must be having a definitional disagreement, because there's no way you think that the Forgotten Realms is a real place. (Right? Are you guys literally crazy, rather than just crazy-acting?). Since it's not a real place with an independent reality, then nothing can happen there except things we invent.

Quote from: BWA;420071You lost me there.

Read my later post.

Quote from: BWA;420071Again, I assume we must be having a definitional disagreement, because there's no way you think that the Forgotten Realms is a real place. (Right? Are you guys literally crazy, rather than just crazy-acting?). Since it's not a real place with an independent reality, then nothing can happen there except things we invent.

The very fact that you're thinking about this in dichotomous terms tells me you're either seriously lacking imagination, or are just so wrapped up into your own rhetoric you just can't get away from it for two seconds to try to understand what we are talking about when we are speaking of finding out stuff about NPCs that we didn't know before but that was always there nonetheless when we role played them, or that events, forces, people move in the game world off camera without us even paying attention to them, until as GMs we just look back at the place and go "Oh! This part of the world changed that way? I didn't see that coming."

That's verisimilitude. That's a world in motion. That is the antithesis of what you are talking about.

Quote from: Cole;419792Silver Ravenwolf?

90s pseudogoth/wiccan minor celebrity. Best known I think, for her wiccan-conversion manuals for teenyboppers. Known for believing the characters in her fiction are real people inhabiting a different dimension that "tell" their stories to her (sort of like that episode of Darkwing Duck I guess). She is apparently constantly surprised by what they do.

Quote from: BWA;420071You lost me there.

Again, I assume we must be having a definitional disagreement, because there's no way you think that the Forgotten Realms is a real place. (Right? Are you guys literally crazy, rather than just crazy-acting?). Since it's not a real place with an independent reality, then nothing can happen there except things we invent.

That what not Benoist is saying or the rest of us.

The setting has an existence separate from the players. The setting is created and MANAGED by the referee. The player roleplay as if the setting is a real place in which their character exist.

The way you (and the other story gamers) make it sound like none of this exists until everybody sits down at the table and starts playing the game. The setting as well as the "story" of what the character unfold from that point on.

Technically a game could be run like this but it not a roleplaying game. It is own game form with it's own body of experience. Sure their could be some overlap just like we use wargame mechanics and terms to resolve certain things in RPGs. But the game you and the other story gamers are trying to play is not a roleplaying game.

The disadvantage of a story game that I seen so far are that

1) They tend to be very narrow in their focus and mechanics. To the point of where many of them are would be considered settings and adventures for RPGs.

2) Their plot/story is only as good as the weakest member of the group. In this case as shown by other arts (writing, plays, etc) more is not always better.

3) Characters often devolve into a bunch of Mary Sues because everybody has the ability to change the settings, and circumstances. So nothing surprising really happens because the deck is stacked to produce a particular result.

4) It is not surprising that fans of story games are a small minority in the hobby. Tabletop roleplaying is already a small hobby to begin with because the commitment in time to playing and prep make requires a lot more investment than other forms of gaming. What Story Games try to do is even harder (see #2). It may work for some groups but for the average gamer is produces spectacular flameouts and a lot of WTF moments.

In the end roleplayers want to be challenged. It how we have fun. Roleplayer want to feel that they have accomplished something with characters and the key to doing that is to have an referee running and managing the world in which character exist. The various rules systems I seen for "Narrative Control" destroy that by allowing the players to turn their characters into a bunch of Mary Sues.

Quote from: estar;420083The various rules systems I seen for "Narrative Control" destroy that by allowing the players to turn their characters into a bunch of Mary Sues.

Unfortunately, the "Mary-Sue-ism" is the result of limiting GM power and is infecting traditional games not only through narrative means but also through the "obedience to rule balance" meme in game mechanics.

The end result - a reduction of immersion due to the focus on narrativism and gamism, two gaming styles accepted by Uncle Ron devotees.

Read the quotes from Paul and Ron that Morrow posted and look at the result of GNS theory - D&D4e and WFRP3e.

Quote from: BWA;420042Another imaginary example:

Brian (GM): Okay, so the king is furious. He demands to know why you entered the mine.
Nate (player): I tell him that we are seeking the enchanted chalice to destroy the lich-king, and that he would do well to aid, rather than hinder us. I stand up and thunder at him, Aragorn-style.
Brian (GM): No, you don't do that. You start crying. You tell him you're a treasure thief. He laughs at you.

In any normal game (again, traditional games only) Nate's response to the GM's question would have been totally valid. It's his character, he gets to say what his character says to the king. That is to say, he has the authority to narrate his character's response.

And the GM's response? Yes, it's dick-ish, but it's also wrong in a fundamental way. It's not a role-playing game in a meaningful sense if the player lacks that authority.

Your example is (obviously) absurd, but with a bit of tweaking could be something I've seen in play more than once:

Brian (GM): Okay, so the king is furious. He demands to know why you entered the mine.
Nate (player): I tell him that we are seeking the enchanted chalice to destroy the lich-king, and that he would do well to aid, rather than hinder us. I stand up and thunder at him, Aragorn-style.
Brian (GM): Err... seriously, the king's furious here and you're surrounded. You do remember they call him "the hanging king", right? Are you sure you want to do that?

Yes, the example is a bit contrived still, but as I say, I've seen the GM response of "That action seems a bit strange to me, are you sure you've understood the current circumstances" be used to override player action (a more reasonable example would be something like "I jump the chasm" "You did hear me say it's 30ft wide yeah?").

There's also the possibility that the story the player is foisting off here is using metagame knowledge: e.g. knowing what a lich is.
Its a silly example, since the situation is getting so contrived and metaphorical walls are getting shoved in on all sides but anything the player says is at best conditionally true.

Players can't have narrative control (quite apart from immersion issues or the question of whether there is a narrative) because
a) the GM is the only person at the table who has complete world information and so knows definitely that an action is plausible
b) the GM is the only person who doesn't have a character, and so who doesn't have a vested interest in controlling the outcome.

So in an standard RPG, ultimately the GM always has "right to veto". Whether they choose to exercise that right, is irrelevant to whether that right is present i.e. whether they actually have that power. The example here is one where you're building a case for why the GM shouldn't utilize that power. That doesn't indicate they don't have it.

Your fun parable for today ;): four guys in a car. (The driver is equivalent to the GM, of course). You can put forward a case that the guys in the back can influence the destination ("can we stop for an icecream?"), but saying they have "narrative control" is rather like claiming that because they can influence the destination, they also count as "driving".

Quote from: estar;420041When people wave "Narrative Authority" like that they are using it to escape the consequences of a dumb-ass decision and whining about it.

From your various posts you have no conception of how a immersive sandbox campaign works.

I'm sorry, but that's a total crock of shit. For starters if I want to "escape the consequences of a dumb-ass decision" I will say "yes it was my choice how my character acted and yes it was my character's actions which led to his gruesome death being immolated by the pyromancer because he struck her in an effort to disrupt the ritual she was performing jointly with the vampire, werewolf and mage, instead of just attacking the vampire who I knew out of character wouldn't have been able to kill me outright, but that doesn't actually make me pigshit stupid because my character would not have known how powerful the pyromancer was, even though for out of character reasons I did, and he would have thought he was safer attacking her as a normal human than attacking any of the others in the ritual circle, so what I was actually doing was roleplaying faithfully to the character - indeed I was thinking so far in character that I wasn't really thinking about my out of character knowledge of the situation at all, which meant that the consequences came as a bit of a surprise to me, but they wouldn't have if I had metagamed". This is an actual recent example by the way, albeit with a bit of extra explanation. My decisions as player are my responsibility. I take responsibility for them. And I base them on how my character would naturally act, most of the time, and on what will provide enjoyment for everyone else in one twisted way or another, the rest of the time. So, for you to go making the kind of offensive assumption which you make - makes you no better than Ron Edwards in the Forge thread that John Morrow linked to where he says so-called "Simulationists" game that way out of fear. You're doing exactly the same crock of shit thing.

The only sense in which I'm using the phrase "narrative authority" is:-

... the final say in the events that unfold in the game-world.

Now, you can get on your high horse all you like about the phraseology "narrative authority". You can say:- when I say what my character does, I'm not trying to describe anything, what I'm doing is verbally elect his actions - it's an illocutionary act. So there's no description, and nothing sensibly to be called a narrative. Fine. Maybe the word "narrative" is figurative here in the sense that a "story" kind of seems to emerge from the discourse at the table even if on a true analysis it's not really a story. But superficially it looks like a story. And I might take the view that the word "narrate" has a wider meaning than telling a story, and can be used for illocutionary acts of the kind in question. That's how the natural usage of the word seems to me, or at least, if I'm using the word figuratively, it's a very close analogy even if not literally correct, and you're being a pedant about it.

You can also get on your high horse about "authority" and try to say:- nobody has "authority" over the actual course that events take - it emerges naturally from the world-conditions set by the GM and from the vebally elected acts of the characters (verbally elected by the players). And I say, I understand that point, but you're misunderstanding the word "authority". "Authority" doesn't mean "decision". The GM doesn't have to decide exactly what happens event after event in order to have that authority. What matters is that whenever a player calls their character's action, it only stands if the GM lets it stand. If I say "I draw my sword and attack the orc" the GM is at liberty to say "as you think about drawing your sword what you suddenly recognise as a Curse of Pacifism which unbeknownst to you a goodly witch seems to have cast upon you washes those thoughts of wielding your blade from your mind and you find yourself confused, you miss your action and leave your sword in your scabbard". The GM is at PERFECT liberty to do this and it might not EVEN be jerk-ass GMing depending on the circumstances.

For you to suggest that I don't know what's going on in immersive roleplaying is absolute horseshit mate considering that you do not watch me running roleplaying games or playing in them and I suspect they look very much like the ones you play. Why would you make that kind of assertion???

As for a "sandbox", I've seen the term bandied around a lot, and as far as I can recall the best definition would be something along the lines of (who was it, Benoist's?) World in Motion where the PCs have freedom to explore and are not constrained in their actions by any kind of railroading, stark or subtle, express or implied. And the GM has no agenda of where the game should be going at all.

Of course I frickin understand that kind of play. I'm not sure that it 100% accords with the games I run, as I usually have a bunch of key scenarios pre-thought out which may or may not occur, and which if they do occur could go in all sorts of different ways which I may not be able to predict, and where there are certainly not simply fixed choices (although sometimes there might be, e.g. the party will or will not sacrifice the virgin to appease the demon, and he will or will not wreak bloody vengeance on them). But there will be huge elements of sandbox in the games I run in that OK I've tried to put something exciting into the game to lure the party into some kind of adventure where I at least have some clue as to how to keep them entertained the whole time if things start to stall, but ultimately if the players want to do something totally off the wall and different then of course they can!

And of course I understand that there will be games going on out there where the players are ALWAYS doing stuff totally off the fly which the ref had no prior knowledge about. I'm pretty sure I've played in games like that and I may even have run one or two.

So you really don't need to go assuming that I don't understand, in essence, what immersive roleplay IS, or how to run an open-ended game, when I plainly DO. The difference between us, mate, is simply one of terminology. Is "narrative authority" an analytically accurate or acceptably analogous phrase for the power that the GM has over the game, and which players in storygaming type games might want to grab a chunk of? In my view, yes. In your view, no. What can be inferred from that? That we disagree over the meaning of some fairly difficult-to-fathom language where reasonable minds might differ, and/or as to the appropriateness of an analogy.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT ROLEPLAYING MEANS NOTHING MORE THAN TELLING A STORY COLLECTIVELY BY DESCRIBING WHAT YOUR CHARACTERS DO. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE GM ACTIVELY CONTROLS THAT ACTIVITY SO THAT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE GAME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SOMETHING THE GM DID.

You might say - it's attributable to the GM letting it happen. Well, only in the distorted sense that if you say "I draw my sword" and the GM says "OK, you can draw your sword", that's somehow attributable to the GM letting it happen - which is to say, not in any meaningful sense at all.

Stop jumping to baseless conclusions about other people being ignorant about what you're doing just because they don't agree with the exact finer nuances of the appropriate language to describe what you're doing, when they're probably largely doing the exact same thing as you.

Quote from: Omnifray;420099The only sense in which I'm using the phrase "narrative authority" is:-

... the final say in the events that unfold in the game-world.

So under your definition of narrative authority, do you think players in immersive RPGs have any?

Quote from: CRKrueger;420050Ridiculously bad example, because, for one thing, the player is summarizing in third person what he's saying, instead of actually saying it.  If that's what you call being in character, then no wonder you think the term narrative applies.

Indirect speech is perfectly acceptable in tabletop roleplaying games. Direct speech is clearly more immersive. But when I start using direct speech I feel a moment of mini-LARPing coming on. I'm not saying I then whip on a tabard and prance around the room waving a sword around, but it's definitely going beyond the minimum baseline of tabletop roleplaying. I use indirect speech for some things, direct speech for other things. Just depends how I feel. Maybe I should use direct speech more, maybe even exclusively, but just because someone uses indirect speech in one example does not mean that they are not roleplaying immersively AT ALL. This kind of flawed logic is only going to alienate people from engaging with the argument.

Direct speech is a technique for emotional immersion which is different from the baseline intellectual immersion.

Quote from: Benoist;420055If you start with the assumption that nothing happens in the game world beyond what you say is happening, then your world will automatically fail in terms of emulation and immersion, because it will never be able to become a world-in-motion.

Nothing is DEFINITIVE in any meaningful sense regarding what happens in the game-world until the GM is aware of it or at least until it's part of how he's subconsciously processing the game-world. If it's going on in the GM's head, it's pretty much going on in the game, because it will affect the way the game turns out going forward - even if the GM hasn't articulated it in express terms or even conscious thoughts. Once it's stated at the table (with the GM's at least tacit acceptance), it's pretty much definitive (although the GM could still reverse it retrospectively, but that could be a pretty bad game).

Now a lot might be going on in the players' heads too, and that's happening for THEM individually. But it's not really part of everyone else's game experience until the player brings it to the table and the GM accepts it (at least tacitly). The game is really the shared experience, not the individual's player's experience of it.

The GM's experience of the game does ultimately define the game, but only because the GM is the one with Final Authority, which is to say, the power to rule on what has or has not happened in the game-world (even if generally speaking he will let the players simply choose their characters' actions and won't interfere with the intentions they attribute to their characters). So in other words what starts off as the GM's experience of the game pretty quickly makes it to the table as the shared experience. What starts off as a player's experience of the game may or may not do so, but through the filter of the GM's veto.

So the element of truth in what BWA says is:- the game is the shared experience, not the individual player's experience of it. And stated in those terms, I can't believe that there's much difference between you. BWA's fallacy is to think that this "shared experience" is to be equated exactly with what is expressly stated at the table. That's not the case. But the two are quite close, and by just exaggerating the difference between your position and his, you are failing to engage with his side of the debate.

Quote from: Settembrini;420104Direct speech is a technique for emotional immersion which is different from the baseline intellectual immersion.

Adopting your use of language, I would still say that using indirect speech in one example does not mean there is no emotional immersion during play. Just because you don't use every available technique optimally to achieve it, doesn't mean the basic phenomenon isn't there.

Quote from: Omnifray;420102But when I start using direct speech I feel a moment of mini-LARPing coming on. I'm not saying I then whip on a tabard and prance around the room waving a sword around, but it's definitely going beyond the minimum baseline of tabletop roleplaying.

mini-LARPing? Hm.
Direct speech is *the* tried and true method for immersion, used by method actors for ages. It's, in fact, the single most effective tool (next to non-verbal acting) to portray a character, thus promoting immersion for everybody at the table. I can't see anything LARP in that.

**edit:
Australian "multiform" rpgs have used this approach forever...

QuoteI use indirect speech for some things, direct speech for other things. Just depends how I feel. Maybe I should use direct speech more, maybe even exclusively, but just because someone uses indirect speech in one example does not mean that they are not roleplaying immersively AT ALL.

I addressed that in one of my prior postings. Indirect speech IS, by definition, NOT immersion. It promotes the so-called "critical distance" between player/actor and character. Indirect speech is the opposite of immersion.

Quote from: Benoist;420076That's verisimilitude. That's a world in motion. That is the antithesis of what you are talking about.

It's not simply verisimilitude. It goes way beyond verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is just about realism (rather even than believability or immersion). What you're talking about is a pre-existing fleshed-out world. "World in motion" is a reasonable term for it. You can't immerse yourself in an unbelievable world. You can't get a sense of the unknown from a world which is blatantly being made up as you go along, and that may also hamper your immersion. But that doesn't make "unbelievable" and "being made up as you go along" be the same thing. If you're going to insist on other people maintaining precise analytical distinctions, you should try to do so yourself.

Quote from: Omnifray;420108You can't immerse yourself in an unbelievable world.

Probably one of the most true statements you've said so far.

Suspension of disbelief is an important part of immersion.

Quote from: Omnifray;420108You can't get a sense of the unknown from a world which is blatantly being made up as you go along, and that may also hamper your immersion.

Bullshit.

If the GM is working with the world as an unknown and is, for example, creating it on the spot through random tables at that moment, then the Players will also be working with an unknown and making it into a known quantity while playing. If anything, in an exploration scenario it helps to create the immersion since everyone at the table is tuely dealing with  - an unknown.

Quote from: CRKrueger;420101So under your definition of narrative authority, do you think players in immersive RPGs have any?

I would have thought that my earlier post which said that in the immersionist's world, GM narrative authority = 100% and player narrative authority = 0% ... would have answered that question.

I also have 0% Jedi Force-Lightning powers. In the real world. For real. OK?

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420107I addressed that in one of my prior postings. Indirect speech IS, by definition, NOT immersion. It promotes the so-called "critical distance" between player/actor and character. Indirect speech is the opposite of immersion.

Well, it's an interesting line of thought. Maybe you're right. But just because when a player opens his mouth what comes out is grammatically indirect speech - does not mean that he hasn't begun imagining it first as direct speech, then translated it into indirect speech for the table.

To clarify the LARP comment, LARP DEMANDS and COMPELS direct speech. Tabletop gaming, as a mechanical process, doesn't.

Quote from: jeff37923;420109Bullshit.

If the GM is working with the world as an unknown and is, for example, creating it on the spot through random tables at that moment, then the Players will also be working with an unknown and making it into a known quantity while playing. If anything, in an exploration scenario it helps to create the immersion since everyone at the table is tuely dealing with  - an unknown.

I did say BLATANT. Obviously if the GM is doing his random rolling and flying by the seat of his pants secretly, the players will be none the wiser and may have a sense of the unknown. But now to address your main point:-

If the GM is saying to the players, "so, you wanna figure out what's going on, huh? Well, I don't know either, but let me roll on my wandering monsters table and I'll tell you", the players don't have some notion of having been trying to work out what was really going on. Instead, they have some notion of trying to predict what would happen next. There's a difference and it's critical to the internal experience of mystery and suspense-based gaming. It's not critical to all immersive roleplaying. Suppose you're right and this element of "being made up by the GM as we go along" helps immersion. It still destroys that sense of a pre-existing fleshed out game-world which is critical to the sense of the unknown in the particular sense in which I mean that term, namely - that you have the feeling that you are trying to work out what's going on. You can't have that feeling if you're just making predictions, not trying to discover what's already happening and only partly revealed as yet.

Quote from: Omnifray;420111Well, it's an interesting line of thought. Maybe you're right. But just because when a player opens his mouth what comes out is grammatically indirect speech - does not mean that he hasn't begun imagining it first as direct speech, then translated it into indirect speech for the table.

I agree, but "having begun imagining it" doesn't equal immersion.

QuoteTo clarify the LARP comment, LARP DEMANDS and COMPELS direct speech. Tabletop gaming, as a mechanical process, doesn't.

Well, that's where I differ. In our tabletop games, acting and immersion is a very important part of the game.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420113Well, that's where I differ. In our tabletop games, acting and immersion is a very important part of the game.

I'm not disagreeing. But in tabletop games I've played I don't think I've ever seen a game go by with NO INDIRECT SPEECH AT ALL. I don't think people feel COMPELLED AND FORCED to use direct speech ALL THE TIME in most tabletop gaming groups. In your game, maybe. And maybe that's a better way of doing it in the sense of more immersive, for a heightened experience of the game.

Quote from: Omnifray;420114I'm not disagreeing. But in tabletop games I've played I don't think I've ever seen a game go by with NO INDIRECT SPEECH AT ALL.

True. But whenever I notice it, I ask them to "rewind" and act it out, using their character's voice, if applicable. That surprises newbies and guest players, but generally, it yields *fantastic* results.

Sorry I am confused again.

It seems now that Narrative is being set up as the antithesis of Immersion?

It also seems liek you can only achieve immersion in a sandbox game?

Have i got that right?

It would seem to imply that non-sandbox games are by definition non-immersive and therefore not roleplaying games.

Have I got that right?

Now I am a lazy GM but I am pretty good at being a lazy GM. I don't draw maps unless I need them as a prop, I certainly don't spec out all the monsters etc. I make shit up. I am pretty fucking good at making shit up (I can hold down a job at a major American Bank due to this aptitude). All my Games are 100% immersive. All PCs and NPCs speack in character. The players know which NPCs are speaking just from the tone of voice, language and parlance they use. I don't need to say 'The King says' "bow before me vagabond!" becuase when I say "Bow before me Vagabond!" the players all know its the king.

Anyway, because my world-in-motion is a cheat and is limited to the parts of the world-in-motion tha thte players can see and becuase I use that to control the pitch, timbre and balance of the session I am no longer roleplaying ? Sorry I am a bit confused.

Also Benoist's little rant about if you have narrative elements you can't be immersive. What? Eh? Why can't I spend a point to do this one immersive thing and then spend the next 3 hours totally in character? I can see that at the point of 'spending that point' I am stepping out of immersion but no more so than when I say 'I hit the goblin' and the DM says "roll a d20 then and add your bonuses". Or are we now saying that any game where you have rules isn't immersive or a roleplaying game? I suspect that Narrativists who are engaged in creating a shared story are doing a fuck of a lot more roleplaying than a bunch of 4e players who are running through hour 2 of a 3 hour combat trying to maximise their team synergies to leverage maximum damage potential whilst pushing lead figures round a battlemap and counting squares.

Or could it use be that there is a cadre (I will avoid the term Clique) on this site who beleive that the ONLY WAY TO ROLEPLAY IS TO BE IN A SANDBOX USING OD&D.
How is restricting what is a roleplaying game actually helping?

I am happy to say to BWA that what he describes seems a bit shit and not my cup of tea and I am quite happy to not use complex narrative in my games but I don't see how with a straight face you can genuinely say that that isn't a roleplaying game or out and out accuse him of never having experienced immersive roleplaying, you arrogant bunch of wankers :) (If BWA was to say my games were shit because I wan't sharing narrative authority enough I would say the same to him.)

Before everyone gets confused again: please define "narrative"....
BTW, I'm constantly sandboxing in my games.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420117Before everyone gets confused again: please define "narrative"....
BTW, I'm constantly sandboxing in my games.

For me here in this context Narrative is

'A method of play in roleplaying games* in which the players are able to affect the game world through the addition, modification or subtraction of in world people, places or things.'

So as a working defintion it covers adding an NPC at the time of character generation, as in oWoD or Amber, using a hero point in James bond to ensure the guard's uniform is a perfect fit, using a Fate point to know someone in the village of Gribble, all the way upto 'Okay the tavern is owned by Grimtooth famour purveyor of Traps and mechanisms and an old personal friend of my PC'

And whilst you sandbox in your games I assume you woudl not say that games that do not Sandbox are NOT ROLEPLAYING GAMES.... or woudl you (narrows eyes suspiciously....)

*obviously the use of roleplaying games is contentious but its my definition so yahboo suck to you.

Quote from: BWA;420071You lost me there.

Again, I assume we must be having a definitional disagreement, because there's no way you think that the Forgotten Realms is a real place. (Right? Are you guys literally crazy, rather than just crazy-acting?). Since it's not a real place with an independent reality, then nothing can happen there except things we invent.

Its such weak-sauce when Forge Swine have to go exhume the rotting corpse of Pat Pulling to grave-rob her old "playing RPGs will make you crazy because you'll believe that shit is real!!" argument.

Really, with stuff like this, like making use of the lame-ass arguments of the second most reviled woman in the history of RPGs (after Lorraine Williams), and essentially taking her side in it, how can we NOT think that the Swine hate RPGs? How can anyone be buying their shit when they pretend to want the same thing as regular roleplayers?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;420121Its such weak-sauce when Forge Swine have to go exhume the rotting corpse of Pat Pulling to grave-rob her old "playing RPGs will make you crazy because you'll believe that shit is real!!" argument.

RPGPundit

Do you think he is actually saying that or do you think he is taking the piss out of what was a pretty daft statement to make in the first place?

Quote from: jibbajibba;420116Sorry I am confused again.

It seems now that Narrative is being set up as the antithesis of Immersion?

To me, "The Forge" is the antithesis of Immersion, but whatever...

QuoteIt also seems liek you can only achieve immersion in a sandbox game?

Have i got that right?

It would seem to imply that non-sandbox games are by definition non-immersive and therefore not roleplaying games.

Have I got that right?

Not to me. You can achieve immersion in ANY kind of regular RPG, because that's one of the landmarks that defines a Regular RPG (that it intends to create immersion, at least; it may not always succeed all the time).  A game that intentionally tries to avoid immersion, like virtually all Forge games, is NOT an RPG.


RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;420122Do you think he is actually saying that or do you think he is taking the piss out of what was a pretty daft statement to make in the first place?

To say that Immersion is real, to say that an RPG world takes on a life of its own that exists beyond the table and inside the imaginations of its players and especially its GM, is in no fucking way a daft statement.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;420066Nope. You are wrong in a huge, glaring, obvious way. This is not the nature of reality you describe. Only what you assume it is.

Yeah, but the same thing can be said of anyone's opinion here. That is Psychology 101, our central nervous system distorts the reality it observes to fit into its own limitations.

Now, more to the point: I don't think anyone here believes that the setting is a REAL PLACE, that exists beyond our mental space. What I think Ben and others is that, sometimes, you can make unexpected decisions on behalf of your NPCs. So YOU make the decision and then think "Wow, why did I decide that?" But you always retain, of course, a sense of identity and know that the NPC is, in the best case, a figment of your collective imagination.

So, you can be surprised when an NPC reacts in a certain way, because you didn't expect yourself to make this or that decision while playing that role. Which is an entirely healthy and sane way of playing a character.

Now, if someone tells me that his NPCs REALLY talk to him, he needs a pizza made with Haldol.

Quote from: jibbajibba;420116Sorry I am confused again.
It seems now that Narrative is being set up as the antithesis of Immersion?
Narrative is 'a method of play in roleplaying games* in which the players are able to affect the game world through the addition, modification or subtraction of in world people, places or things.'

Not necessarily.

Eons ago, Erick Wujcik wrote a piece about "the lazy GM style", and about how he used that tool to increase the fun of everybody involved. The lazy GM style allowed players to do exactly what you describe above: to add, modify or subtract people, places or things in the game world. I use that all the time in my games, but I, as the GM, have the final say on those things.

QuoteIt also seems liek you can only achieve immersion in a sandbox game? Have i got that right?

I don't think so. Immersion and sandbox play are different ballgames and have nothing to do with each other. You can have immersion in almost every trad rpg.

Quote from: Imperator;420130I don't think anyone here believes that the setting is a REAL PLACE, that exists beyond our mental space.

Ooooh.
I do. I do believe a setting is a real place. As real as a, for instance, tiger in a dream is that threatens your life. Or as real as the beautiful woman you meet in your dreams -- or in the game world, for that matter.

That is: In the game world (or in the dream world), the tiger is real. And the really interesting thing is that events in the game/dream world sometimes have a very real influence on the physical world... so what's real, really?

Quote from: RPGPundit;420126To say that Immersion is real, to say that an RPG world takes on a life of its own that exists beyond the table and inside the imaginations of its players and especially its GM, is in no fucking way a daft statement.

RPGPundit

Hold on did you just say that the world has a life beyond the imaginations of the players, an independent existance if you will? Or beyond the table but still within the imagination of the players and GM.

The former is very hard to prove without delving into some pretty deep and spurious string theory mathematics the latter I of course agree with :)

What Ben actually said was

QuoteI'll actually one-up on my last post. If you actually believe this, like, not for the sake of arguing, mind you, but you really believe that nothing whatsoever happens in the game world except the stuff you say at a game table, and have always believed this while playing a game, you've never actually role played, as in, immersed yourself in a game world, and actually have never experienced a role playing game.

Yeah. That statement of yours is that wrong, to me.

Now that is a pretty strong, and if I may say so Benoist old man, a rather arrogant thing to say.  To accuse someone you have only interacted with in a few dozen posts on a web forum of never having role-played.....

I also think that from a GM perspective its a mistake because if i run a game and I have come up with some RPG gold that i think the players will love I think it would be a bit nobish to have the PCs miss it because it happened off camera whist the PCs were having lunch. Unless of couse Ben does actually believe that his game world is totally independent of his own mind and when he goes back to check what is happening finds to his amazement that the major villain died from food poisoning and his wife took over implementing a benign tryany. If he does do that then remarkable but I suspect it makes for less interesting games, real worlds being generally less dramatic and interesting than made up ones.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420115True. But whenever I notice it, I ask them to "rewind" and act it out, using their character's voice, if applicable. That surprises newbies and guest players, but generally, it yields *fantastic* results.

Very interesting. I think I'm going to try that out.

Your comments on immersion and direct v indirect speech have set my thoughts on a very interesting path regarding the game I'm currently designing. I'm going to spawn a separate thread on that shortly.

Quote from: jibbajibba;420116It seems now that Narrative is being set up as the antithesis of Immersion?

I think it would be more accurate to say this:-

deliberate and conscious control of the flow of the game is in tension with immersion

In tension with does not mean utterly and forever destructive of. But there may be counterimmersive after-effects which linger for a while, for some people longer than for others.

QuoteAnyway, because my world-in-motion is a cheat and is limited to the parts of the world-in-motion tha thte players can see and becuase I use that to control the pitch, timbre and balance of the session I am no longer roleplaying ?

You, as GM, are not consistently roleplaying. Roleplaying is what the players do. Sometimes as GM you are roleplaying. Sometimes you are merely facilitating the players' roleplay, for instance by setting the scene, rather than actually playing a character.

You, as GM, when you are playing a character, and the players too, when they are playing characters, might consciously control the pitch, timbre and balance of the session as you put it. And that is inherently counterimmersive. But it might only occupy their thought-processes for a split second and they might be back immersed in character soon after.

QuoteWhy can't I spend a point to do this one immersive thing and then spend the next 3 hours totally in character?

You can. Even the most committed immersionist would find, I think, no more than a temporary interruption to their immersion which fades after a few minutes or maybe a little longer. But it must vary to some degree from person to person.

QuoteI suspect that Narrativists who are engaged in creating a shared story are doing a fuck of a lot more roleplaying than a bunch of 4e players who are running through hour 2 of a 3 hour combat trying to maximise their team synergies to leverage maximum damage potential whilst pushing lead figures round a battlemap and counting squares.

Obviously.

Quoteyou arrogant bunch of wankers :)

Again, obviously!! :p

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420131Not necessarily.

Eons ago, Erick Wujcik wrote a piece about "the lazy GM style", and about how he used that tool to increase the fun of everybody involved. The lazy GM style allowed players to do exactly what you describe above: to add, modify or subtract people, places or things in the game world. I use that all the time in my games, but I, as the GM, have the final say on those things.

Sounds exactly like the way fate points work in the games I've written / am writing. The GM has final say.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420132...
That is: In the game world (or in the dream world), the tiger is real. And the really interesting thing is that events in the game/dream world sometimes have a very real influence on the physical world... so what's real, really?

As an exercise in purely rational analysis, this must be correct. And probably more true in the case of an immersive RPG than in the case of an abstract storygame.

But to go back to Imperator's orignal point which you were commenting on, what you describe in the specific bit I've quoted could be said to be happening purely in your "mental space". It's real, and it takes on a life of its own, but it's within your mental space. There's nowhere else for it to be except via string theory etc. as jibbajabba says.

Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420131Not necessarily.

Eons ago, Erick Wujcik wrote a piece about "the lazy GM style", and about how he used that tool to increase the fun of everybody involved. The lazy GM style allowed players to do exactly what you describe above: to add, modify or subtract people, places or things in the game world. I use that all the time in my games, but I, as the GM, have the final say on those things.

I don't think so. Immersion and sandbox play are different ballgames and have nothing to do with each other. You can have immersion in almost every trad rpg.

Good :)

But what Wujcik says in that article is getting pretty close to what a lot of people , espeically Pundit (which is hugely ironic as he casts himself as the greatest Wujcik fan ever) would classify as THE EVIL SWINE INDUCED MIASMA OF NARRATIVISM.

cue Pundit to site example where Wujcik and the swine were obviously in direct conflict and where Wujcik declares the Edwards GNS to be absolute bollocks (.... but note he fails to exclude the idea of narrativism in games as perfectly fine just not using a Forge defintion of it :) )

Let's assume we can all agree that players playing immersive roleplaying games are not trying to tell a story, and in fact are not telling a story. Even the GM isn't trying to tell a story. Can it still be meaningfully said that a story "emerges through play", as opposed to being "told"?

Don't bite my head off, this is just an avenue of thought to explore.

Through their illocutionary acts (doing-by-speaking), the players express their stated intent.

When the GM expressly, impliedly or privately in his mind, consciously or subconsciously, accepts the intended act thus expressed, the act becomes definitive within the game.

Where the GM's acceptance of the illocutionary act is manifested at the table (rather than merely by private thought), the act, as well as becoming definitive within the game, also becomes definitive within the participants' shared experience.

It gives rise to an expressly or impliedly stated proposition which though incidental to the player's original illocutionary act is inherent in the GM's acceptance of said act.

Through play a series of such express or implied propositions emerges. Those propositions are descriptive of the in-game events which can be attributed to a sequential order even if some are simultaneous and some emerge out of sync with the order in which, in the game-world, they would happen.

So a series of descriptive propositions emerge regarding the sequence of events in a fictional world. The GM supplements this during play with descriptions of the game-world, setting the scene if you like, but perhaps also describing events within it.

These descriptive propositions and descriptions could be said to constitute, taken together, a story. A story which has never been specifically or deliberately told, but which has emerged as a set of propositions.

So a story emerges through play, or more specifically, through the GM's express or implied acceptance of the players' (and, incidentally, his own - e.g. "the orc attacks you with his sword - ah, a 7, he missed") illocutionary acts, as well as through the GM's own descriptive statements.

It's a bit like the contrails of an aircraft. You don't fly in a plane to create contrails. They emerge naturally through flight.

A story doesn't emerge in quite the same sense from something you do like for instance going fishing. Going fishing does not produce a discourse constitutive of descriptive propositions of the actions involved in fishing. Playing a roleplaying game is unique in the field of human activity in that it does inherently produce a discourse consisting largely of illocutionary acts which through the GM's implied or express acceptance constitute incidental descriptive propositions.

It's like when you use a credit card, you leave an electronic trail behind you, a record of what you've spent. By playing a roleplaying game, you leave an oral trail behind you of discourse which records what's happened - or which would record it, quite literally, if you recorded an MP3 of it.

So, players do not tell a story when they play RPGs. GMs perhaps could arguably be said to tell a story (impliedly or expressly) when they facilitate the players' activities. But whether the story is told or not, it certainly emerges through play. The players have no direct part in telling the story. If anyone tells the story at all, it's the GM.

So perhaps WW weren't literally wrong to call GMs storytellers? Although you can still say that it's not a very good name for them, because it's a bit like calling a medieval knight an "armour-wearer". Sure, wearing armour is inherent in [the popular conception of] being a medieval knight. But it's hardly the focus of the activity.

Unless you have some very strange fetishes of course.

Quote from: Omnifray;420140Let's assume we can all agree that players playing immersive roleplaying games are not trying to tell a story, and in fact are not telling a story. ...

...

 Sure, wearing armour is inherent in being a medieval knight. But it's hardly the focus of the activity.

Unless you have some very strange fetishes of course.

Or like Erick Wujick once said (well okay he wrote it on his blog) ...

The other role-playing event was Wednesday Night, at the GameScape game shop in downtown San Rafael, California, with six incredibly talented role-players, including the store owners and operators. I threw then an interesting challenge; to each create a character who is older than they appear, who would be introduced on New Year's Eve, 1899, and to also invent two abilities for the character that ordinary humans do not possess. Each of the players came up with awesome characters, incredible backgrounds (everything from a wayward time traveler to an immortal Native American, from a eternal vagabond to an 18th century drug lord, from a Fairie-abducted Medieval Lord to a beautifully twisted Southern Belle) and wonderfully well composed eldritch talents. It was my pleasure to meld all this into a (somewhat) coherent storyline. My thanks to the players; I'm really looking forward to our next session, set New Year's Eve 1924!

My god he gave the players narrative control and made it into a story... the SWINE

(I love Erick Wujcik and if by some odd quirk of faith or inverted Quantum Geometry he ever gets to read this forum not taking your name in vain just thought it was funny and thanks for Amber, still the greatest game ever written.)

Quote from: jibbajibba;420141My god he gave the players narrative control and made it into a story... the SWINE

No, I suspect it was Eric HIMSELF (and not the players) who had the Final Authority at the table and who pushed and pulled the game in the directions which gave rise to a storyline - a story emerging through play. No doubt not for the purpose of having a story emerge through play, but for the purpose of the players' experience of immersive roleplay. Let me say that last bit quick before Pundit reads this :p

PS kudos to you for trying to wind him up about it though, good trolling effort :p

Quote from: jibbajibba;420141Or like Erick Wujick once said (well okay he wrote it on his blog) ...

The other role-playing event was Wednesday Night, at the GameScape game shop in downtown San Rafael, California, with six incredibly talented role-players, including the store owners and operators. I threw then an interesting challenge; to each create a character who is older than they appear, who would be introduced on New Year's Eve, 1899, and to also invent two abilities for the character that ordinary humans do not possess. Each of the players came up with awesome characters, incredible backgrounds (everything from a wayward time traveler to an immortal Native American, from a eternal vagabond to an 18th century drug lord, from a Fairie-abducted Medieval Lord to a beautifully twisted Southern Belle) and wonderfully well composed eldritch talents. It was my pleasure to meld all this into a (somewhat) coherent storyline. My thanks to the players; I'm really looking forward to our next session, set New Year's Eve 1924!

My god he gave the players narrative control and made it into a story... the SWINE

(I love Erick Wujcik and if by some odd quirk of faith or inverted Quantum Geometry he ever gets to read this forum not taking your name in vain just thought it was funny and thanks for Amber, still the greatest game ever written.)

My god! he used the word "story" (or more correctly speaking, a word that has "story" in it) so OBVIOUSLY he means EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT RON EDWARDS DOES!! My whole world was a lie, and clearly now any argument I make must be wrong and I have to surrender to the genius of the storygamers!

You fucking cunt.

MAKING CHARACTERS is not in any way conceding narrative control. The GM has the authority to give the guidelines for creating a character: those can be anything from "do ANYTHING at all" to "you have to create a 1st level fighter who's highest stat is Charisma", or anything in between.
In this case cited above, Erick gave certain rules; all the characters had to be older than they seemed, have two superhuman powers, and be set in 1899.  
There's no authority actually in the hands of the players here, just because there are very broad guidelines for character creation. A player could not turn around and say "im going to make a character who's YOUNGER than he looks, rather than older" or "I'm going to make a character without any superhuman powers".

And what Erick calls "storyline" here is just another word for plot.   It bears no resemblance to what Edwards and the Forge Swine call "story"; though that's no surprise since most things called "story" don't.

So, essentially, you've just wasted all of our time in your pathetic and desperate attempt to show that "HUR HURRR Pundit's mentor liked Forge Stuff take that Pundit you Poopyhead!! HURRR DERP DERP".  Fucking retard.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;420149My god! he used the word "story" (or more correctly speaking, a word that has "story" in it) so OBVIOUSLY he means EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT RON EDWARDS DOES!! My whole world was a lie, and clearly now any argument I make must be wrong and I have to surrender to the genius of the storygamers!

You fucking cunt.

MAKING CHARACTERS is not in any way conceding narrative control. The GM has the authority to give the guidelines for creating a character: those can be anything from "do ANYTHING at all" to "you have to create a 1st level fighter who's highest stat is Charisma", or anything in between.
In this case cited above, Erick gave certain rules; all the characters had to be older than they seemed, have two superhuman powers, and be set in 1899.  
There's no authority actually in the hands of the players here, just because there are very broad guidelines for character creation. A player could not turn around and say "im going to make a character who's YOUNGER than he looks, rather than older" or "I'm going to make a character without any superhuman powers".

And what Erick calls "storyline" here is just another word for plot.   It bears no resemblance to what Edwards and the Forge Swine call "story"; though that's no surprise since most things called "story" don't.

So, essentially, you've just wasted all of our time in your pathetic and desperate attempt to show that "HUR HURRR Pundit's mentor liked Forge Stuff take that Pundit you Poopyhead!! HURRR DERP DERP".  Fucking retard.

RPGpundit

Don't be a dickhead (and that was dickish even for a Rhetorial Device)

I have been saying for ages Edwards stuff is bollocks but that what Omnifray and to a lesser extend BWA is saying is meant by narrative is about as far away from GNS as you are from a bloke I woudl liek to have a pint with in the pub.

You know that Erick woudl just have rolled with whatever the Players came up with. You know he woudl happily use the term story or narrative and you know he would happily let the PCs add their ideas to the world to make it richer and more inclusive of the way his players wanted to play.


And I didn't waste your time you read it and replied to it I just wasted my time trying to prick the pomposity of someone who's head is so far up his own arse he can only clean his teeth through colonic irrigation.

And strangley I object to the word retard used an an insult. I have a retarded friend.

Cunt I am fine with by the way :)

Quote from: BWA;420071You lost me there.

Again, I assume we must be having a definitional disagreement, because there's no way you think that the Forgotten Realms is a real place. (Right? Are you guys literally crazy, rather than just crazy-acting?). Since it's not a real place with an independent reality, then nothing can happen there except things we invent.

My take on it is that the game world is an imaginary construction, but that the process of RPG play is interaction (via the character) with that game world as if it were real, which, for example entails treating events which happen outside of what the PCs directly experience as equally real as the ones which they do directly experience.

Quote from: Cole;420157My take on it is that the game world is an imaginary construction, but that the process of RPG play is interaction (via the character) with that game world as if it were real, which, for example entails treating events which happen outside of what the PCs directly experience as equally real as the ones which they do directly experience.

That makes sense. But would you say that the GM has the authority to manipulte that world to make it more interesting or that once they have set it off so to speak they are unable to influence it.

By means of a practical example. There is an NPC villain who intends to torture the captured prince and find out where the crystal goblet is hidden. At the start of the game you had in your plot a notion that the PCs had 15 hours to break intot eh dungeon and rescue him or it would be too late.
The players get involved in a side plot, no real fault of their own as you sensed it interested them so you bigged it up a bit and everyone had fun. As a result they get to teh Dungeon to rescue the Prince after 24 hours.
Now this is fairly typical of genuine play.
Now I think there are a few options

• the Prince is dead the Villain has the Goblet the Pcs failed this time - True world in motion but doesn;t make for a great game
• The prince is dead but you modded the time it woudl take the villain to get the goblet, or you made him need another maguffin that he had to obtain first - world in motionish but maybe unduly complex
• The Prince is lying in his cell battered and bruised - he gave away the detaisl but the villain kept him alive in case he was lying - to stuck to the world -in-mtion but you changed the villain so a bit 'cheaty'
• The prince is alive but badly beaten he held out longer than expected  - this is the most obvious 'the world is in motion but only the bits you can see the  rest is behind the curtain but the illusion of a WIM is the same as a WIM as for as you are concerned

So in my games I would definitely do 2 - 4 and not 1. I geuss a true Sandbox world-in-motion guy would do 1 or maybe 3 or 4.

Now I am quite happy to fiddle with the bits behind the curtain to make the story the players experience more interesting and rewarding but I as a result I would never class my games as sandbox or my world to be truely in motion, though if you were playing you would never realise this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;420116It seems now that Narrative is being set up as the antithesis of Immersion?

I'd rather say that any concept of "narrative," as soon as it creeps its way into a role playing game, acts as a deterrent to immersive role playing, because the very notion of narrative presupposes that you are looking at the game, your character, and/or the game world from an author's standpoint, as opposed to *being* the character or world itself (as player or GM, respectively).

So ultimately, any notion of narrative in a role playing game acts as a deterrent to immersive role playing.
___

OK. Now I think I finally understand what the problem is with people going on and on about storygames as RPGs. They simply seem to have never experienced immersion or role played a character as something else than an invented construct on their part. They've never blurred the lines between them and their character, or them and the game world, ergo, they've never actually played a role playing game, instead comparing the game to all sorts of other media because, well... they have no idea what a role playing game is to begin with. That's starting to make sense, to me.

Quote from: Imperator;420130Yeah, but the same thing can be said of anyone's opinion here. That is Psychology 101, our central nervous system distorts the reality it observes to fit into its own limitations.

Absolutely correct! Thanks. That's where I was going with that. So saying that a role playing game world does not exist beyond what you are saying around the game table, or consciously thinking of or prepping, is just not accurate at all. Saying that a role playing game world is "not real" is likewise, incorrect. If GM and players achieve immersion, and we define reality as a viceral experience that is shared by several people in their perceptions, then the role playing game world is real, from a psychological perspective.

"Reality" is something that relates to the mind, perception, and psychological perspective.
It's not as black and white as some people think it is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;420149My god! he used the word "story" (or more correctly speaking, a word that has "story" in it) so OBVIOUSLY he means EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT RON EDWARDS DOES!! My whole world was a lie, and clearly now any argument I make must be wrong and I have to surrender to the genius of the storygamers!

You fucking cunt.

MAKING CHARACTERS is not in any way conceding narrative control. The GM has the authority to give the guidelines for creating a character: those can be anything from "do ANYTHING at all" to "you have to create a 1st level fighter who's highest stat is Charisma", or anything in between.
In this case cited above, Erick gave certain rules; all the characters had to be older than they seemed, have two superhuman powers, and be set in 1899.  
There's no authority actually in the hands of the players here, just because there are very broad guidelines for character creation. A player could not turn around and say "im going to make a character who's YOUNGER than he looks, rather than older" or "I'm going to make a character without any superhuman powers".

And what Erick calls "storyline" here is just another word for plot.   It bears no resemblance to what Edwards and the Forge Swine call "story"; though that's no surprise since most things called "story" don't.

So, essentially, you've just wasted all of our time in your pathetic and desperate attempt to show that "HUR HURRR Pundit's mentor liked Forge Stuff take that Pundit you Poopyhead!! HURRR DERP DERP".  Fucking retard.

RPGpundit

Wow, I even posted a post publicly explaining jibbajabba was just trolling Pundit on this one, and Pundit still takes the bait!! :p It's a big part of what makes coming here so much fun.

By the way, not convinced "plot" in a literal sense has anything much more to do with roleplaying games than "story" does. A "plot" could be read into the in-game events, the "story" which has emerged through the discourse of play - but it wasn't a plot laid down to begin with, not in the same sense as the plot of a novel. Maybe there were elements of plot, threads of side-plot if you like which the GM envisaged having materialise during the game, but there certainly wasn't a plot ready to describe the focal events of the game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;420151And I didn't waste your time you read it and replied to it I just wasted my time trying to prick the pomposity of someone who's head is so far up his own arse he can only clean his teeth through colonic irrigation.

And lo! I was right. An open and honourable admission of deliberate trolling. Well done grasshopper.

BTW I would be quite happy to have a pint with Pundit in the pub, I expect he's probably as entertaining in person as he is online.

Quote from: jibbajibba;420133Now that is a pretty strong, and if I may say so Benoist old man, a rather arrogant thing to say.  To accuse someone you have only interacted with in a few dozen posts on a web forum of never having role-played.....

I know that's pretty strong, jibba. It's also entirely true from my POV, when you start putting aside the niceties of the conversation. It's not meant as an arrogant statement. It's meant to convey what I perceive as being a fact flowing from a series of assumptions. Notice that I begin the sentence with a series of assumptions: "If you really really believe this" and "if you are not arguing for the sake of arguing" and "have ALWAYS believed this while playing a game" THEN you've never actually played a role playing game.

It implies that there might be some assumptions that could be wrong here. That actually the person doesn't really believe this (for the sake of argument, or just being a cunt about it, whatnot), or DID experience immersion (and thus didn't ALWAYS believed it while playing a game), and just either doesn't remember it, or doesn't want to mention it because that would make his argument look bad, or just argues the thing from a completely theoretical point of view and hasn't considered this, whatever the case may be, for instance.

I worded it carefully, in other words.

Quote from: Cole;420157My take on it is that the game world is an imaginary construction, but that the process of RPG play is interaction (via the character) with that game world as if it were real, which, for example entails treating events which happen outside of what the PCs directly experience as equally real as the ones which they do directly experience.

Agreed. Not necessarily a deliberately constructed imaginary construction though, if that makes a difference - the exact shape of the game-world emerges through play.

Quote from: jibbajibba;420162That makes sense. But would you say that the GM has the authority to manipulte that world to make it more interesting or that once they have set it off so to speak they are unable to influence it.

By means of a practical example. There is an NPC villain who intends to torture the captured prince and find out where the crystal goblet is hidden. At the start of the game you had in your plot a notion that the PCs had 15 hours to break intot eh dungeon and rescue him or it would be too late.
The players get involved in a side plot, no real fault of their own as you sensed it interested them so you bigged it up a bit and everyone had fun. As a result they get to teh Dungeon to rescue the Prince after 24 hours.
Now this is fairly typical of genuine play.
Now I think there are a few options

• the Prince is dead the Villain has the Goblet the Pcs failed this time - True world in motion but doesn;t make for a great game
• The prince is dead but you modded the time it woudl take the villain to get the goblet, or you made him need another maguffin that he had to obtain first - world in motionish but maybe unduly complex
• The Prince is lying in his cell battered and bruised - he gave away the detaisl but the villain kept him alive in case he was lying - to stuck to the world -in-mtion but you changed the villain so a bit 'cheaty'
• The prince is alive but badly beaten he held out longer than expected  - this is the most obvious 'the world is in motion but only the bits you can see the  rest is behind the curtain but the illusion of a WIM is the same as a WIM as for as you are concerned

So in my games I would definitely do 2 - 4 and not 1. I geuss a true Sandbox world-in-motion guy would do 1 or maybe 3 or 4.

Now I am quite happy to fiddle with the bits behind the curtain to make the story the players experience more interesting and rewarding but I as a result I would never class my games as sandbox or my world to be truely in motion, though if you were playing you would never realise this.

Personally (given the conditions you set up already) I would choose option #1. But I would like to point out that getting there and finding the prince dead is not in my opinion equivalent to "slide whistle, roll credits." So maybe the adventure transitions into tracking the villain and his goblet down, or avenging the prince, or escaping the wrath of the angry Queen. I don't think this means that this necessarily means "not a great game." They already had a lot of fun with the side track, right?

If I am setting up a comparable situation from scratch I also (and this is just me) might well set it up more like "after X hours, the prince is this likely to die from the torture per hour, and this likely to capitulate." I think it tends to produce a better 'sandbox' type game if the sequence of events doesn't depend on such a hard coded plot sequence.

I don't think this is the same thing as picking 3 or 4 after the fact, because it's not moving toward a certain result - quite the opposite, I would say since it's working with the idea that the success or failure of the game does not depend on the emergence of a certain desired outcome. It is probably more about creating suspense for me as the GM about what's going to happen next - I don't really know any more than the players do.

Quote from: Omnifray;420140It's a bit like the contrails of an aircraft. You don't fly in a plane to create contrails. They emerge naturally through flight.

Of course, should you then decided to fly the plane with an eye to creating a specific pattern of contrails, say you wanted to do some sky-writing, you would cease to be flying a plane, since you're no longer doing it for the pure experience of flight.