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.