Quote from: Mistwell;341254At the point where a PC power lets them do anything without limitation and the GM must allow it according to the rules, it's both the PC and the Player controlling the narrative, regardless of the level of immersion.  It cannot be helped in a scenario like that.  At some point, ultimate PC power WILL bleed into players controlling narrative, just like a "story point",

Out of intererest: I never played high level AD&D but how does the "Wish" spell fit that description? (There was a limitation of some kind, even in the non-"limited" version of the spell? Like some wording issue? Was that the same in all editions?)

Quote from: RPGPundit;341245Oh, but I think it isn't. You see, what you're saying when you admit to this is that essentially, you've just given a blanket and previously understood PERMISSION to your players to do this stuff, so long as its irrelevant. Its a permission you can REVOKE whenever you feel that what they attempt to do is beyond a "line" of YOUR choosing.
So essentially, you are playing a completely conventional game. At no moment do the Players have actual authority, they just have an understanding of your unspoken consent.  Its no different than asking "could I know some guy at a tavern who could help me", except that you've already basically told them that the answer to this stuff is generally "yes", except when you decide to say that its "no". They don't need to ask, they can assume that the answer is "yes", because you will TELL THEM when its "no".

This is radically different from a game where the players have their own authority, to generate setting, in a way that you as the GM are not allowed to say "no" to them.

You are very much "drawing the line at player control", your players have no control, they just have your unspoken permission.

RPGPundit

Oh I agree totally that my situation is conventional, in fact I think my approach is very much the norm. It's you that said there was a break with it
However, as I noted my substantive point was that this was irrelevant and even if I allowed more control allowing players to have narrative influence it would not make the rest of the game invalid. If I introduced a story system into Amber, you get 3 counters to spend ala Hero points in the James Bond RPG, now as there are no dice you will use them to make a guard about your size walk round the corner so you can knock him out and pinch his clothes, or you place a pair of crossed swords over the fireplace just when you need a weapon (we are not talking about using Pattern to do this but player whim) then am I no longer playing an RPG? Am I still playing Amber? The GM can do this on fiat or allow it to flow from Stuff. Why not allow the players to do it sometimes as well? This isn't Forgist. As I noted the James Bond RPG was doing this back in the mid 80s.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;341289Out of intererest: I never played high level AD&D but how does the "Wish" spell fit that description? (There was a limitation of some kind, even in the non-"limited" version of the spell? Like some wording issue? Was that the same in all editions?)

Pundy has an absolute point here there is a real difference between the Character having a power to affect the game world and the player having an ability to affect the game world. With the Wish the character has a power they can use to affect stuff (in early editions no it was not limited but generally houseruled, no wishing for more wishes etc etc ) in a similar way to how Amberites can shift shadow to create new realities.

These powers are explicable in game terms. They are part of the inherent logic of the setting. If I can grant wishes then I can make myself into a powerful sorcerer etc etc . If I can walk shadows then I can find one where this bar is a hell of a lot friendlier.

The power of a Player to influence the game wold is separate. It is not inherently logical, although the best examples of it try to be. The player makes decisions for narrative or tactical reasons that affect the game world directly. This is totally different from an in game power. The effects might appear the same but the actuality there is no comparison.

Now I would say so what? A mechanic, part of that Game part of the RPG, that allows some degree of the Role (taken to be playing a thing in a defined place) to be influences as part of the game sets up no issues for me. In a card game you might have a mulligan rule for poor starting hands, you might give the weakest player a couple of sets advantage. Games make these sort of changes all the time.
Now I might argue that I wouldn't want to play a game where such control was not strictly regulated. I might argue that I wouldn't play any games where such rules formed part of the rules at all. However, that is irrelevant to the argument that they are RPGs. What any individual likes or doesn't like is totally irrelevant to the defintion of an RPG.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;341250So you're saying that you've never added a simple proviso in agreement with one of your players' statements of intent?  This was kind of fun for a bit, but now I think you're just lying.  Whatever, dude -- move the goalpost wherever you want.

!i!

Never as a response to somehow being or feeling "obliged" to say "yes" to my players, no. Nor as a way to negotiate setting control with them. The GM controls the setting, the players control their characters.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mistwell;341254This is hilarious.  You've actually managed to confuse yourself.  I was not arguing it was not an PRG dumbass.  That was YOU making that argument earlier, not me.  You're actually now arguing against yourself.  Of course it would still be an RPG.  If the majority of people playing that game call it an RPG, then it is an RPG.

So you've missed the point yet again? Jesus fuck, its like talking to a brick wall. Its an RPG whenever the player is limited to acting within the confines of what his CHARACTER knows, sees and is able to do.

QuoteLike I said, you don't yet really understand the argument I and countless others have been making to you over the years in this respect.  

No, you and many of those "others" don't seem to grasp one of the most basic elements of the RPG: The difference between PLAYER and CHARACTER, and the need to immerse in the character.

QuoteThat's OK though. You're allowed to like an RPG that gives the players a higher degree of narrative control than most RPGs while pretending it does not do that.

Amber gives players ZERO narrative control outside of their characters. By your logic, a game where the player characters have mecha would mean they'd have more "narrative control" than one where they didn't.

 

QuoteIn the scenario I outlined, it is both.  Which was obvious, to anyone except you.  I take that back - it was obvious to you also, you just know it's a corner you cannot get out of, so you have to deny it and then insult as a distraction.  Despite how inane it looks for you to deny it.

Given that no one who actually knows the Amber game and isn't an already-known Forger or Pundit-hater has agreed with your side of the argument, I'd say that the one looking "inane" here right now is you, essentially making up an utterly bullshit line of argument just to annoy, because you know you'd be utterly incapable of lasting a second in honest debate.

QuoteAt the point where a PC power lets them do anything without limitation and the GM must allow it according to the rules, it's both the PC and the Player controlling the narrative, regardless of the level of immersion.  

Uh huh. So you really don't understand what "Immersion" is, do you? You could just admit that, you know...

QuoteIt cannot be helped in a scenario like that.  At some point, ultimate PC power WILL bleed into players controlling narrative, just like a "story point", because on that level there is effectively no difference between the two in a game like that.  

Your argument amounts to "PC power level equates to Player Narrative Control".  Which makes as much sense as "level of sausage spiciness equates to overall velocity".  In other words, not at all.
Again, by your logic, a game where people are playing 9th level wizards has more "narrative control" for those players than one where they're playing 1st-level wizards, just because the former have more spells. You do realize that making utterly retarded statements is not a substitute for actually accomplishing anything in your neverending struggle against me and this site, right? Maybe you should go complain about us on other websites again...

QuoteWhich is one reason why good games put limitations on PC powers - as a means of keeping narrative control in the hands of the GM.

You really give away the total ignorance forgers have for the RPG in general, you know. If I were the other Storygamer Swine, I'd be giving you a vicious sack beating right now for making them look so bad.

You put limitations on PC powers for emulation of genre purposes, and occasionally for game balance purposes. It has FUCK ALL to do with "narrative control". Dogs in the Vinyard has people playing regular humans, and players have immense narrative control. On the other hand, in ultra-high-level D&D, PCs are close to demigods, and yet have virtually no narrative control.

QuoteAs for all your other lame examples about PC powers of walking and spell casting, that is precisely why I have been saying Amber Diceless gives players a higher degree of narrative control than most other games.  All RPGs offer players some degree of narrative control, however small and often unnoticed.  Amber gives them more of that control than most.  Get it now?

I get that you are determined to go down with the ship, yes. You've made it crystal clear that no matter how much of an idiot you are shown to be, you aren't going to even bother taking on a different tactic. Congratulations on sticking with the losing play to the bitter end.

QuoteOf course you do...but it's once again time for you to tell me how I don't understand the point of RPGs and how I must be a Forger and all your other low brow typical uncreative insults that you use when you know you're cornered and being asked to think for once.  Because lets face it - you are not used to actually having to honestly deal with these issues.  It's either your little sycophants kissing your ass and nodding their heads, or you dismiss people as Forgers.  There is no actual communication in between for you, like always.  

That's quite the chip on your shoulder there, little buddy. It'd been a while now since theRPGsite was visited by one of the penis-envy crowd.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;341288You never said "Yes, but ... that's a -4 on your roll" ?

You are missing the meaning of "yes, but". If a player is asking for permission to try to roll a die to try to accomplish something where you the GM decide the difficulty and the outcome, he has zero narrative control in that premise to begin with.
If he says "could I try to swing off a tree branch to get to the other side of the river? What would be my difficulty?", he's exerting no narrative control in the first place, and your question is moot.

If on the other hand, he says "THERE IS a tree there, and a friendly hobbit put a rope swing there, so I use that", where none of the above was previously described by me, there he is exerting narrative control. And I have never, ever said "yes but" to that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;341435You are missing the meaning of "yes, but". If a player is asking for permission to try to roll a die to try to accomplish something where you the GM decide the difficulty and the outcome, he has zero narrative control in that premise to begin with.
If he says "could I try to swing off a tree branch to get to the other side of the river? What would be my difficulty?", he's exerting no narrative control in the first place, and your question is moot.

If on the other hand, he says "THERE IS a tree there, and a friendly hobbit put a rope swing there, so I use that", where none of the above was previously described by me, there he is exerting narrative control. And I have never, ever said "yes but" to that.

RPGPundit

By that approach, Burning Empires doesn't give narrative control, either...

The player states a "truth", the GM sets a roll on a wises skill, and if successful, then that truth is in fact truth for the setting. The GM can set absurdly high difficulty, or say yes. (The GM isn't supposed to say "No"; "say yes, or roll the dice", tho' you can roll the dice for absurdly hard. Sometimes, the absurdly hard happens....)

EG: Player is being chased down into the sewers, and needs a hidden junction box to hid in. "I want a junction box to hide in, just out of sight from the main path, and I want to notice it, so I can use it."

"Ob 4, Sewer Wise," says the GM. (It's unlikely but not unreasonable.)

clatter of dice... if 4 successes, then the box is here to be hidden in, and not easily spotted. If 0-3, either (a) no box, (b) box is in plain view, (c) box is too small, (d) box is already full, etc...

It seems you haven't absorbed the implication of the words "asking permission".

Quote from: aramis;341458By that approach, Burning Empires doesn't give narrative control, either...

The player states a "truth", the GM sets a roll on a wises skill, and if successful, then that truth is in fact truth for the setting. The GM can set absurdly high difficulty, or say yes. (The GM isn't supposed to say "No"; "say yes, or roll the dice", tho' you can roll the dice for absurdly hard. Sometimes, the absurdly hard happens....)

EG: Player is being chased down into the sewers, and needs a hidden junction box to hid in. "I want a junction box to hide in, just out of sight from the main path, and I want to notice it, so I can use it."

"Ob 4, Sewer Wise," says the GM. (It's unlikely but not unreasonable.)

clatter of dice... if 4 successes, then the box is here to be hidden in, and not easily spotted. If 0-3, either (a) no box, (b) box is in plain view, (c) box is too small, (d) box is already full, etc...

If the GM can't just say outright "No, you can't do that" or "no, that's not there/happening", then the player is very much asserting narrative control.

It seems pretty retarded to me for someone playing a game where this is the basic concept, to then turn around and say no in essence by setting an impossible success difficulty.  If you do so, then you're essentially admitting that a game where the GM isn't allowed to say "NO" to his players is a game that sucks.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;341506If the GM can't just say outright "No, you can't do that" or "no, that's not there/happening", then the player is very much asserting narrative control.

It seems pretty retarded to me for someone playing a game where this is the basic concept, to then turn around and say no in essence by setting an impossible success difficulty.  If you do so, then you're essentially admitting that a game where the GM isn't allowed to say "NO" to his players is a game that sucks.

RPGPundit

Since there's an open-ending dice mechic (invokable by an expendable resource), and additional dice for other expendables, it's quite possible to make some rather absurd difficulties. I had a player get lucky and roll 12s vs Ob 9... with 3d skill. (He was able to boost the skill with expendables, etc.)

The other thing, tho, is that the GM sets all difficulties in BW/BE/MG... but players get the option to chicken out before rolling.

The rules specifically uggest using the modifiers to discourage such funkyness. There is also a provision for the group (or any member, including the GM) to say "no" if a proposed bit of information contradicts anything previously established...

It's actually far more fun to set that difficulty at 7-12... because, if they made it, they and the spirits of dice wanted them to.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;340457Thanks for the replies. I ask this question because I tend to agree with Clash's post, but my current game in progress has an abstract combat system that superficially resembles a board game.

For me, the line is when you start taking things away:

-The GM and player roles
-Freedom of choice to take any action within a character's power
-Freedom to run any type of story that can conceivably happen in a setting.
-Rules that serve as a framework for the game. Though I prefer them to represent the "physics" of the setting, I'd still consider something an RPG if it did the rest. I just might not play it.

Stuff like that. I'm not so concerned with how you get there, just that you can do the things above and more.

MM, that is very close to my working definition. Perhaps you were hanging around on EN World when we were tossing ideas around?

1. A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events.
2. Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules.
3. At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions as if that character.
4. Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game.

Quote from: Shazbot79;341078If a games publishers identify it as a roleplaying game, then that in and of itself is good enough for me.

There are, of course, some games that I like better than others, but that doesn't, in essence, make them any more or less a roleplaying game. Attempting to objectively define what makes something a "roleplaying game" is a largely prententious and masturbatory effort to codify one's subjective value judgments.

Eh, I can see a value in identifying what makes it fun for me.  For instance, the face to face interaction is an important component to me, and I really consider online games to be something different.  Others enjoy them greatly and think of them as the same kind of fun as a tabletop.  This is okay.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;341171The question I would ask you is this: At what point do you draw the line?
Why would it be OK for a Player to decide autonomously that there's a bar with his old buddy Two-fingers, but not ok to decide that Fiona will conveniently decide to give him the Vorpal Sword that will kill the Jabberwocky?

RPGPundit

Every narrative control I've seen has a provision for GM veto in there.  Players should get a good bang for their narrative control buck, but not too much.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;341434So you've missed the point yet again? Jesus fuck, its like talking to a brick wall. Its an RPG whenever the player is limited to acting within the confines of what his CHARACTER knows, sees and is able to do.

Things in AD&D that the CHARACTER doesn't know about.

Hit points
Saving Throws
Attack Matrices
Levels

Indeed, the hit points are a sort of narrative mechanic.  I understand that some people find it distasteful for the players to have points/powers just because they're a PC.  Personally, I don't care why John McClaine is awesome, I just enjoy watching him do it.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;341434blah blah blah, same bullshit different day

"Of course you do...but it's once again time for you to tell me how I don't understand the point of RPGs and how I must be a Forger and all your other low brow typical uncreative insults that you use when you know you're cornered and being asked to think for once. Because lets face it - you are not used to actually having to honestly deal with these issues. It's either your little sycophants kissing your ass and nodding their heads, or you dismiss people as Forgers. There is no actual communication in between for you, like always. "

Like I predicted, to a tee!

Wee!

I said: "Imagine a game that said the characters specifically can create any NPC with their specifically dictated looks and personality and knowledge, and any location of anything that does anything they want it to, and any object of any power whatsoever, and they are the only ones that could do this in that universe, and nothing can interfere with this "power".  Note, I am not in any way saying that IS Amber Diceless, I am just asking you to imagine it."

You said: "No that is not narrative control, you evil swine forger dummy poopyhead".

Except now...

Quote from: RPGPundit;341506If the GM can't just say outright "No, you can't do that" or "no, that's not there/happening", then the player is very much asserting narrative control.

So when I posited a fictional game where such was precisely the case (NOTHING can interfere with the power), then it was not narrative control.  But now, unless the GM can say "you can't do that", you admit it IS narrative control!

So which is it, are you just not very bright, confused, think nobody is looking, or a weasel? Pick one.

I think there's a bit of a disconnect on what you think of as narrative control and what Pundit thinks is narrative control--internal vs external in a way.

In traditional RPGs, players do indeed drive the narrative, but they do so from within the game-world and according to its rules.  If a game grants a PC the power to destroy worlds, they can certainly use that ability to influence the outcome of the narrative and create (literally) earth-shattering events, but it is all within the context of the game.  When you do this in a game with narrative control mechanics for PCs, these sorts of things happen because the player uses these external mechanics to tug the game in their direction, rather than acting with and being bound by the world.  

It's the difference between making a deadly climb up the mountain because your character has the ability to do so vs. some divine spinner of fate deciding that you make the climb up the mountain regardless of what your in-game abilities say is possible.

Not that I completely agree with Pundit.  Even traditional RPGs mingle OOC knowledge and IC knowledge a great deal, allowing players to navigate circumstances for their characters as if they were guardian angels rather than immersing themselves completely in the role and being truly limited by the game-world and their characters abilities.  Gygax talked at great-length about player skill and what an important role it played in successful D&D campaigns, in fact he was a real proponent of Not Taking Shit Seriously and treating it as a game in the truest sense.  The GM still had ultimate authority, but the players weren't strictly bound by the intellect or abilities of their characters in all cases, and were often encouraged to metagame to influence the outcome of certain situations.  Good GMs were often encouraged to reward creative behavior.

Personally, I view narrative controls as a mechanized version of working with your GM.  Traditionally, you'd have to argue a pretty good point to get your way, and it became sort of a social game where you'd have to persuade your GM to agree with your course of action and if it were possible--this was especially true of out-of-combat situations where the rules had no dominion and it was solely a matter of convincing the GM.  In a way, that's almost attempting to assert narrative control using the GM as a sort of proxy. Now I don't think action-points or die-rolls can really substitute for the fun you can have bouncing ideas off your GM and watching his reaction, but they're just another way to deal with how much player control can be exerted on a character or a situation.  

(Oh, right.  I'm new.  Hi.)