Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;416663Usually even writing a background for your character means the player is creating NPCs. Is this really a problem? You can't create a character 'in character' since they don't exist yet, so it can't interfere with immersion.

For me no not at all.
However, I have been bought to task by Pundit before for saying that 'Player: I pick up a wine bottle from the table to use as a weapon.' is the same as, 'Player: Is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a weapon. DM: Yes. Player:Okay I pick it up' . That seems a lot less impactful that paying a point in Amber to have a contact who runs a tavern on the Amber docks that is a front for a smuggling ring.

If you take the FGU games (Like Daredevil for instance) they have a set of skills called Subcultures. These subcultures are skills that let you find contacts, get stuff done in certain areas. A player can legitimately roll under his Law Enforcement subculture to know a guy at the local station who worked on the Fibbonaci case back in '24. Now the GM can create that NPC who may or may not have existed in his original plot or they can delegate that task to the Player. It doesn't stop it being an RPG and it doesn't break immersion. In fact you could argue that rules like these that flesh out the PCs relationships in the world help to make the world real and give the PCs in investment in it.

I use these type of things all the time Riff on a PC idea turn a dice roll into a fully fleshed NPC, reincorporate the NPC back into the game spin out a plot line from that. I would say I am still the final arbitrator but that just is my taste. If I wasn't and I allowed the PCs to do more and spin out more stuff then that wouldn't stop it being an RPG it just changes some of the dynamics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416612When a single person has the ultimate authority over a world, it is consistent.  An NPC that reacts one way one session will act the same way the next.  When you have shared authority mechanics, and players can "edit" the world, then the setting is not internally consistent by definition because we all look at a RPG setting and have different opinions as to how exactly things work.

I hear what you're saying, I just don't understand why this can ONLY be achieved with a traditional GM.

An example: The Shab al-hiri Roach (a game on Pundit's "most-reviled" list) is a GM-less game. In the game there are handful of NPCs that keep re-appearing from scene to scene. Any player whose character is not in a given scene can be assigned one of these NPCs to play by the player "in charge" of that scene.

So what happens is that a single NPC will be played by multiple players as the game goes on. Per your theory, this might result in an NPC who was inconsistent in manner and agenda, which would be lame.

In practice, this doesn't happen. If I'm playing one of the NPCs, I have to pick up on what the last player did for him - did he speak with an accent, was he deranged, did he have a burning hatred for one of the PCs? It's a creative constraint, which helps make things entertaining, And, in turn, I can add aspects to his personality that the next player will have to run with.

However, I see that you are using the term "immersive role-playing", so, in effect, you are discussing a particular style of role-playing. I got no beef with that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;416686I use these type of things all the time Riff on a PC idea turn a dice roll into a fully fleshed NPC, reincorporate the NPC back into the game spin out a plot line from that. I would say I am still the final arbitrator but that just is my taste. If I wasn't and I allowed the PCs to do more and spin out more stuff then that wouldn't stop it being an RPG it just changes some of the dynamics.

I can't possibly see how any rational person would disagree with this. Although I fully expect someone to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416604He doesn't believe that the DM/player relationship defines RPGsbecause Gygax did it, he believes that RPings started with the DM/player relationship because that's the best way to achieve the emulation of a world and the immersion that comes from it.

No. "The structure of RPGs was the basic structure inherent in the first RPGs..." and "The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way."

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;416728No. "The structure of RPGs was the basic structure inherent in the first RPGs..." and "The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way."

Seanchai

Right, they were set up that way, note however, that fact has nothing to do with what I said as to WHY Pundit thinks that is the best way to go.

Quote from: BWA;416700The Shab al-hiri Roach

Quote from: Bully Pulpit Games WebsiteA fast paced and hilarious game, The Shab-al-Hiri Roach requires no Game Master and can be played in a single evening. If you enjoy crazed one-upmanship, furious stake-setting, and chanting gutteral commands in Sumerian, The Roach would like to have a word with you.

The Shab-al-Hiri Roach is a dark comedy of manners, lampooning academia and asking players to answer a difficult question – are you willing to swallow a soul-eating telepathic insect bent on destroying human civilization?

No?

Even if it will get you tenure?

At what point in this game exactly are you playing the role of a character and not concerning yourself mainly with the metagames of 1.)oneupmanship, 2.)comedy, 3.)satirizing academia.

I haven't played it, so am asking a question.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416736At what point in this game exactly are you playing the role of a character and not concerning yourself mainly with the metagames of 1.)oneupmanship, 2.)comedy, 3.)satirizing academia.

I haven't played it, so am asking a question.

Sure thing. A perfectly fair question.

I think CHARACTERS are the heart of any RPG session, and consistency is key to that. If you had people only concerned with "doing funny stuff" or meta-commentary on academic politics, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

The last time I played the Roach, my character was an Egyptian-born junior professor of ancient languages, kind of shady and overly pedantic. Since it's a one-shot, and a comedy game, I definitely didn't inhabit the role as deeply as I might have for a more serious, campaign game.

But the fun - and much of the comedy - of the game derives from seeing the characters gradually deal with more and more chaos and madness and treachery. A distinct, recognizable persnality for each PC is crucial to that.

Does that answer the question?

It's absolutely legit to say that some people enjoy metagaming, and some enjoy being fully immersed in a single character. Although in my experience, that's a "points along a continuum" thing, rather than an "on-off switch" thing.

That "The Shab al-Hiri Roach" thing sounds like crap.

By description alone - its not a ropleplaying game. Its a parlor game or card game with delusions of RPG-hood that it will never achieve.

Its sounds like a game for bored and jaded academics that was wriotten by bored and jaded academics.

Sorry, but most people I know want to rescue the hostages, storm the castle,  save the day or world, run a tramp space-freighter, or maybe re-unite a couple in love while fighting an evil empire - sometimes all of those at once in the same two or three game sessions!


- Ed C.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416735Right, they were set up that way, note however, that fact has nothing to do with what I said as to WHY Pundit thinks that is the best way to go.

Sure it does. It was his response when asked why an RPG has to have a GM. He said because that's the way they were developed.

Now he wants to say that a traditional GM-player relationship is a fundamental aspect of the game, but rolling dice is incidental, like Vancian magic or a particular setting.

Seanchai

Quote from: Koltar;416745Sorry, but most people I know want to rescue the hostages, storm the castle,  save the day or world, run a tramp space-freighter, or maybe re-unite a couple in love while fighting an evil empire - sometimes all of those at once in the same two or three game sessions!

And that's just honky dory, but that does not mean that what other people enjoy playing isn't roleplaying. Just like there is no stone tablets saying that a rpg must have a gm, or dice for that matter, dragons and high paced action aren't must-haves for it to be a roleplaying game. Play what you want and do it just the way you and your group want to, but don't dictate what's fun for me or belittle the roleplaying games I play. It's not the Koltar way or the highway.

And yes, there could easily be some castle-storming and hostage freeing in the game I'm currently running.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416777And that's just honky dory, but that does not mean that what other people enjoy playing isn't roleplaying. Just like there is no stone tablets saying that a rpg must have a gm, or dice for that matter, dragons and high paced action aren't must-haves for it to be a roleplaying game. Play what you want and do it just the way you and your group want to, but don't dictate what's fun for me or belittle the roleplaying games I play. It's not the Koltar way or the highway.

And yes, there could easily be some castle-storming and hostage freeing in the game I'm currently running.

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y
:hatsoff:

"Roach" was fun when I played it at a con.

It was about halfway between a parlor game and what's commonly thought of as a roleplaying game. (A "traditional" RPG if you prefer.)

It had pretty much no regard for in-character point-of-view. ("IC-POV", what's often referred to as "immersion", but that word has other connotations, so I'm trying to avoid it.). Players could summon "helpers" into the situation out of thin air, to get bonus dice, the setting itself was paper thin, and nothing in your description of what you did would have any effect on the outcome, except insofar as you described arbitrary "helpers" and might sway other players to add their dice to yours.

It also had a very scripted progression of scenes, and the cards you'd draw to do crazy things when possessed by "the roach" often didn't seem to work very well--don't recall if the instructions were ambiguous mechanically, or if they just produced results that made no sense in terms of what was going on. Either of these issues would have been mitigated by having a GM to adjudicate, but when players have to negotiate them at the table, it makes the game that much less conducive to IC-POV.

An early version is at http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/the-shab-al-hiri-roach but there was some amount of revision before it was sold as printed product. Not sure how much, but that might give you a sense of the game.

What exactly that has to do with the topic of the thread, I'm not sure.

Quote from: BWA;416700However, I see that you are using the term "immersive role-playing", so, in effect, you are discussing a particular style of role-playing. I got no beef with that.

No. All real roleplaying has Immersion as its goal.

RPGpundit

It has nothing to do with the topic. Its just standard Forge Swine Shilling.

RPGpundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;416800It was about halfway between a parlor game and what's commonly thought of as a roleplaying game. (A "traditional" RPG if you prefer.)

That seems like a pretty fair description to me. It's definitely not a game you'd get your group together to play every week. But it's still fun.

Quote from: Koltar;416745That "The Shab al-Hiri Roach" thing sounds like crap.

By description alone - its not a ropleplaying game. Its a parlor game or card game with delusions of RPG-hood that it will never achieve.

Its sounds like a game for bored and jaded academics that was wriotten by bored and jaded academics.

But you've never played it. So you don't really know one way or the other.

Jesus, I'd be embarassed to say things like that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416801No. All real roleplaying has Immersion as its goal.

Okay. Why? Where is that written?

If you can make a case for that, then that's one thing. Otherwise, you have to admit it is merely your personal preference.