In response to a suggestion here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20199.0
I offer the following play examples in hopes of finding some indie RPGs that facilitate this kind of fun. In general, I like when things are cinematic, where it feels like the scene could have happened in a movie: Action, Comedy, Drama, Horror...it makes no difference.
POSITIVE EXAMPLES as a Player
Star Wars, using a Savage Worlds conversion: The players (myself included) are a band of rebels (didn't see that one coming did ya'?), and the inevitable gun fight breaks out between our band and a squad of Storm Troopers. It was all fairly bland. Trading shots back and forth, until the trooper with a heavy repeating blaster goes down. At that point, I had enough and decided I rather have my character killed or do something interesting...maybe both. So I had my rebel charge straight into the middle of the storm troopers, dive for the repeating blaster, scoop it up, and begin firing. The rules didn't quite facilitate this well, but the GM was willing to fudge a little, and the scene came off perfectly with successful dice rolls. Very cinematic. More to the point, it seemed to spur the other players into trying things beyond the 'trading shots or hits' that are so common to RPG combat.
Cyberpunk, using GURPS cyberworld: Over all the game was fun, but there is one moment in particular that I still think of fondly. I'm playing a 'solo', and he's sitting on a counter at a warehouse, holding a submachine gun to a guys face, trying to extract information. Several of this guys goons shows up in front of us and bring up their weapons. I played it like a movie, asking the GM if I could roll backwards off the counter to duck behind for cover, while firing the SMG at the goons. Again...the rules didn't really facilitate this, but the GM fudged some and I pulled it off with some rolls.
Fantasy, using AD&D: Another brief scene that speaks volumes. I was playing a Necromancer, and I went against type, playing him somewhat foppish and dandy. Well dressed, friendly, and unnervingly confident when facing all things undead. At one point I scouted ahead (in wraith form) to a tower, and found a vampire lords coffin in the basement. I knew our band of adventures could in no way take on a vampire, so I returned and told the rest of the players, "We are leaving". I played it out that my character was very scared and wanted to go. Given that in the previous 10 sessions or so, my character was never afraid, this sudden turn around positively spooked the rest of the players. I really enjoyed having a well defined personality for my hero, one that the rest of the players also knew well enough to see when something was wrong.
POSITIVE EXAMPLES as a GM (which by and large, I've predominantly been a GM for the last 24 years of gaming)
Fantasy, using Savage Worlds: I had scene set up where the king of a small, but strategically important, kingdom was entertaining ambassadors from neighboring (and waring) kingdoms. The heroes were representatives of one of these kingdoms. I had detailed notes about all the ambassadors, their assistants, the king, his assistants, and so on, and had written out a bunch of 'talking points' for each character: So that if a conversation started up, I knew roughly what this person would talk about and I could ad-lib. It was a terrific evening, the players roundly enjoyed themselves and spoke highly of the adventure. And all evening...not one die was rolled. It was all role-playing, immersion in character, debates, arguments, conspiracy. Great fun!
Super Heroes, using Villains & Vigilantes: The lone hero found an evil looking chalice on the possession of a recently beaten villain, and took it to a professor with knowledge in the occult. Consequently, the hero accidentally got the kindly old professor sucked into the chalice. The player was spooked by that, and later that evening when the kindly professor turned up, but now as a demon-spawned villain, the player absolutely freaked. He got goose-bumps, and could barely talk, he was so stunned and flustered. I had him! I had played the game so convincingly that the player was deeply immersed in his character, and reacted in total shock. It was a beautiful moment.
Sci-Fi using Star Frontiers: The players were military types fighting a war against pirates/terrorists. I told them from the start of the campaign, "Here is the known area and threats. You can go where you please. I tell you know, some areas are too dangerous for you, and some might be a cake walk. You won't know until you get there. I pull no punches." It set the players off right from the start. They were cautious, they scouted, they planned, they acted decisively. They were on edge the whole time, and I found them more than once discussing what to do next on the off game nights. And these weren't people who discussed gaming except at the table. I had them hooked.
Slavish attention and devotion to the rules kills my fun. I would not have been able to pull off the previous examples of stunts if someone was following the rules exactly. Obviously a GM can fudge at any time to allow for something not covered by rules, but it would be nice to play in a game that made allowances when those times occur. Additionally, I know role-playing can be done without rules to define who people act socially (as I have shown), but I like rules that reward it, or at the very least, don't seem oblivious to it.
I guess, I should end this rambling mess by saying...I like games where the rules support cinematic action AND story telling.
Thanks for reading.
Wow, this is like looking in a mirror, from when I was wrestling my way through late-1980s Champions, Rolemaster, and early Cyberpunk.
Here's what strikes me most in your account - you say that you like rules which facilitate the kinds of play you've described, but in almost all of your examples, the rules had to be ignored or at least heavily re-interpreted in order for that sort of play to occur.
In other words, in your experience based on this post, you've never seen rules which actually facilitate it. You've experienced social and creative "contracts" which permit it to happen as an exceptional approach.
This is the kind of experience which leads people to say things like "system doesn't matter, all you need is a good group," and similar statements. It's true as far as it goes, but the point is that it doesn't go very far. It's like saying that the propulsive system of a vehicle doesn't matter, as long as everyone gets out of the vehicle and lifts it on their shoulders, carrying it along. "See? Our car goes no matter what!"
So as a player, based on your descriptions, I suggest that the games you've played have been, essentially, the same game - one which does not work for your purposes. So you and your groups have been playing another game , which I think you probably knew. The problem is, it's the game of "get out of this car and carry it on our shoulders."
I'd like you to imagine something: a splayed-out fan of possible ways to play, not a single door or path. This is the variety of games which really do facilitate the kind of play you're talking about. The reason I'm calling it a fan is because they do not do it in the same way. The differences among them make D&D, GURPS, and Cyberpunk look like exactly the same thing. Which rays of the fan are more interesting to you, I don't know. There is no way to tell. But this is my way of telling you that not all of them may suit you, so be prepared for that.
Your GMing accounts are very powerful to my reading. Again, they remind me a lot of my own approach during a certain period - the point of saying that is that these techniques do work and can be developed into even more amazing approaches, which really turn authorship over to everyone, even when the GM's back-story is rock-solid, not improvised. Since that's where your interests are pointing, I think you'll be pretty surprised at how far some of those approaches have come. Again, though, it's a fan. You might find some of these approaches not to your taste, whereas others will be like, "where have you been all my life."
My recommendations for you at this moment, then, are: The Shadow of Yesterday, Primetime Adventures,
There are other independent games, but they are really different and, based on your experience with specific titles, probably too far off the beam.
Rather than talk about them, I'd like to hear more about some actual play experiences in the same games you've described. If you would, pick just one and let us know if the kind of play you're talking about didn't work out, for some reason. What happened? Why didn't it work out?
I understand that might be an entirely social question: "Bob didn't agree that a commando could do that," or some similar interaction. That's all right, it can still be discussed without going into whether you or Bob was in the right.
Best, Ron
QuoteThe rules didn't quite facilitate this well, but the GM was willing to fudge a little, and the scene came off perfectly with successful dice rolls. Very cinematic.
I think Savage Worlds does facilitate this very well. There are very simple rules for multiple actions, as well as using a Trick: (run & Grab repeating blaster, lay down fire that Troopers duck their heads, buying me time to then lay more accurate fire down later (next round)). No fudging necessary.
However, in the heat of the moment, the GM might not have thought of that. So he fudged things. That's cool. I do it all the time.
My point is not to be some Savage World defender. Its true that I love the system. But rather, I think Ron's suggestions of The Shadow of Yesterday (I don't have PT Adv, but heard glowing things) is really useful. Because I too have been on a similar journey, and I bring what I learn from a game like Shadows of Yesterday (or Burning Wheel) BACK to a game like Savage Worlds. And its better for it.
Wow. What a terrible post above. One of those times I wish I could edit.
I have this idea of HOW my experiences with the games Ron mentioned, that allowed me to recognize that SW's TRICK mechanic are precisely for cinematic game play... and perhaps more importantly, a mechanic that points toward: "really turn authorship over to everyone".
Maybe I'm just ... y'know ... projecting, but it looks to me like the things you find satisfying as a player are very different from the things you like to provide your players when you GM.
If you could find someone with exactly your tastes in gaming ... would they be a good GM for you? Or are you geared to provide an experience that is most enjoyable for people who are wired differently from you?
Heya,
First, to Storn: Hey! Nice to see you here. Yeah, I'm fully aware of what SW can and can't do. The game in question was done before SW was ever released as part of the playtesting process. The rules weren't quite hammered out then, but I agree that SW as written now, could handle that scene with little trouble, but these issues are not my point. Almost all RPGs penalize the player for trying to do something "out of the box", which is why even in a game like SW (and let me say that SW is indeed my favorite RPG, and has been for the last 3 years), most people play it safe and do the "trading shots" type of combat.
Second, to Ron: Hello! Thanks for the nice welcome and comments. First, some backstory: My gaming journey to this moment has been a long, somewhat ironic, one. I played and run so many different games through the years, and have always been on the lookout for the 'one true game': A generic system that would allow me to play all the different ideas, genres, and settings in my head. I went through GURPS, HERO, D6, Amazing Engine, Fuzion, D20, and back and forth, and everything in between.
Savage Worlds was it for me. I found the rule system that did 99% of what I wanted, and for the last three years, it has been a blast....but (and you knew that was coming, didn't ya?), it has also ironically made it boring. It's the same underlying rules for every setting, and no matter how many patches are added to help it play under a different genre (my own Scairy Tales included), it's the same thing, and none of it really helps capture the feel of the setting. To use your automobile analogy...No matter how many paint jobs, decals, or modifications to the engine or body..I'm still driving the same car.
Be careful what you wish for, right? I got my perfect system only to realize what I really want, is different systems for each idea. I'm not a big fan of the mainstream RPGs (the last one I really enjoyed was 7th Sea when it was first released). All of which has led me here. It feels like I've come home, and perhaps inevitably has inspired me to create my own RPG (more on that later).
Now, as to your example you requested, I'll give you one that I hadn't mentioned before:
The heroes were a band of adventurers who had entered into a large valley that had been cursed with some kind of magic that had turned almost everyone undead. The players were expecting a hack-n-slash type of game: kill the zombies, find the lich running things, kill him, gain treasure. I gave them something much more than that.
The backstory to the valley was filled with tragic love, betrayals, ancient evil, conspiracy, and heart. The 'villain' was not a lich, or a necromancer, but actually a quite noble, and good-hearted paladin, the only living thing in the valley beyond the heroes. He was cursed, yes, but as a tool of a curse for a mistake he made years ago. The real villain was the curse, something the heroes couldn't fight directly.
At no point did I ever have a simple encounter of something to fight...just to fight. Every combat had a backstory relating to the themes. It was never a ghost and his treasure to be taken, it was a ghost of a fallen warrior, who died defending his wife. He protects her corpse from all who would defile her remains. It wasn't a wight and some ghouls just to kill....it was a former school master and his pupils who still tried to retain some semblance of decency by following routine in the school house. Who I might add were all destroyed by the heroes when they "shot first, and asked questions later", only to feel incredibly guilty over killing children...even if it was ghoul children. So on, and so forth. And even the fights were in unique or exciting locations.
The whole campaign came to a close, not in some titanic struggle, but in simply presenting the paladin with his sword (he had used it to spill innocent blood) which had been lost, thereby breaking the curse.
There was story, there was emotion, there was mystery, there was action. The players had a real stake in the outcome, and followed their own motivations throughout the campaign influencing the story as it progressed, inventing relationships between their characters and NPCs, places, and objects, to bring everything into greater focus and meaning.
It was incredibly rewarding for me, and I guess for the players too since they gave me a standing ovation at the close of the campaign, and took me out for dinner.
I ignored the rules about 50% of the time.
Quote from: TonyLB on June 24, 2006, 01:16:44 PM
Maybe I'm just ... y'know ... projecting, but it looks to me like the things you find satisfying as a player are very different from the things you like to provide your players when you GM.
If you could find someone with exactly your tastes in gaming ... would they be a good GM for you? Or are you geared to provide an experience that is most enjoyable for people who are wired differently from you?
Actually, you might be both right and wrong. Heh.
I posted examples of what was positive for me on both sides of the screen, and what I find positive differs from those view points. Which is not to say that as a GM I'm against cinematic play, or as a player, I'm against story. Quite the opposite. It's just that my motivations are different between the two. As a player, I'm trying to entertain myself first, and other people second. As a GM, I'm trying to entertain others first, and myself, second.
Quote from: thwaak on June 24, 2006, 01:36:47 PM
It's just that my motivations are different between the two. As a player, I'm trying to entertain myself first, and other people second. As a GM, I'm trying to entertain others first, and myself, second.
That's interesting, and I respect the honesty. You are far from the only player out there, who, if pressed, would frame that dichotomy very similarly.
However, I would argue that that dichotomy is about the closest thing to being "wrong" play in a purely objective sense there is. I mean we wouldn't tolerate that attitude in any other social situation. In fact, in just about any other social endeavor where a group of friends are interacting we'd call "entertaining myself first and other people second" as being "selfish" or even "anti-social" and in any functional social setting we'd seek to exclude people like that from our gatherings.
Yet in gaming its almost standard operating procedure (so I'm in no way criticizing you for holding it). People who in other social settings would never exhibit such behavior will do so around a gaming table.
Further I would argue that most traditional game texts unintentionally teach us that that is the way we're supposed to play. There are literally reams of pages dedicated to outlining the GMs responsibility to entertain the players. There is little written about the player's responsibility in that regard. Instead the players are encouraged to "stay in character" and "not use out of character information" in a way that serves ultimately to isolate the players from each other, so that everyone is playing the game in their own little world getting their own entertainment as best as they can.
Consider instead the significant difference at the social level between this attitude and "As a player I'm dedicated to helping every other person at the table enjoy the game just as much as I am"; "As a GM, I'm dedicated to helping every other person at the table enjoy the game just as much as I am".
An interesting exercise would be to think back on those most enjoyable experiences and compare them to some of your least enjoyable experiences and see if you can see signs that at the former times the social dynamic was everybody helping everybody have fun while during the later times that wasn't the case.
Its my belief that we increase both the degree and frequency of "enjoyable experiences" in our gaming when we dedicate ourselves to ensuring everybody is having a good time and not just ourselves (or in the case of the GM, not just everybody except ourselves). This is hardly a novel idea...after all good party hosts/hostesses do this routinely...but I think one of the biggest "revolutions" the Forge has escorted in has been articulating that this basic social dynamic should apply at the game table...and then working on ways to design games that encourage this dynamic as opposed to traditional games which (however inadvertantly) encouraged the other.
A good thread, thwaak. Thanks for launching it.
I think it's worth noting a counter point to consider: selfish play is valid play as well. In chess you don't consider the other persons feelings if you take their rook, for example. In a solidly constructed roleplay game the same is true. If you design a game such that the only ways players can be selfish will be the same ways that support what the game is supposed to do, then their being selfish can only make the game do what it's supposed to do. Indeed, in such designs, being altruistic will actually screw up what the game is supposed to deliver.
I almost agree Callan...as long as the game design calls for no subjective judgements, selfish play is valid play...and, indeed, in many cases, preferred play.
All board/card games work on that principle (although some people may choose to play them "for fun" all good ones can stand up to competive play). Successful board/card games have clearly articulated rules for every contingency. Games that fail that test are called broken, or require errata.
No game that relies on subjective interpretation, or allows creative input outside of the limited parameters of the game's rules can rely on selfish play, however...especially games that have an non equivalent balance of power.
So, when you say "in a solidly constructed roleplay game the same is true..." I almost agree.
If you consider Descent, or the Heroquest Boardgame to be "roleplay games" then it is possible to design such a game. Most CRPGs would fit that model...because the computer allows for no subjective interpretation, nor does it allow for creative input outside of the limited parameters of the game's rules. Of course, in the world of CRPGS and MMORPGs there are "exploits" which are either bugs or features depending on your subjective interpretation. In MMORPG land for instance, does "gold farming" or buying items you didn't earn from ICE constitute "selfish play"...probably. Does that impact others ability to enjoy the game...by some standards it does. Would "camping", "power leveling", "training", or other griefing tactics occur if all players in an MMORPG were as dedicated to the enjoyment of others as to their own...probably not.
So even on the computer, where the "rules" are unambiguous...("can my character do this", "yes, it can"), there is a point at which "can I do it", is different from "should I do it", is different from "am I supposed to do it".
Now the "dedicated to everyone else's fun" standard is clearly too much to expect from 10,000 anonymous internet users. But in a smaller group playing games where the rules are even more open to interpretation than on a CRPG I think its even more important.
Its more important because it doesn't take actions extreme enough to be "griefing" to keep play from being as good as it could be. Even something as subtle as missing another player's cues because you were so busy "being your character" that you weren't paying attention to them leads to an overall decline in potential enjoyment. RPGs can cross some pretty heavy boundaries and get into some pretty uncomfortable areas where missing cues can lead to some awkward situations; something that isn't likely to spontaneously and unexpectedly arise in boardgames. But even if there aren't any lines and veils being crossed, just missing the opportunity to make someone else shine means the game overall isn't likely to be as good as it could have been if you hadn't missed it.
And not missing it requires a desire and willingness to look for it, which is where being dedicated to everyone's fun equally comes in.
And I'll note for clarification, that always acting on it is not the right answer either. Being dedicated to to helping every other person at the table enjoy the game just as much as I am is not the same as putting yourself last and ensuring they enjoy the game more than you. Being willing to stand up for what you enjoy is just as important a piece of the equation as compromising for what someone else enjoys...in fact, for some people its the harder part.
But to draw this somewhat back on target. I'm not talking about behavior as simple as "don't be a jerk". The part of Brent's post I quoted, in no way suggests he was being a jerk. No I'm talking about much more subtle behaviors...things that we routinely do with our friends just hanging out that makes them feel good. We have friends we smack talk hard core too, and other friends we never do because we know enough about our friends to know what behavior is appreciated and what is not, and we choose (often enough to keep them as friends) to act accordingly. Same thing at the gaming table, which is why a common mantra around here has been to never game with people you wouldn't want to socialize with outside of gaming. To use a recently coined phrase "how do I make the other player awesome" is one way to approach it. The answer is going to be different depending on what player you're talking about and what the situation is. If you're playing with Tony LB, for instance the way you make him awesome is put is put his balls in a red hot vise and give him the opportunity to display how macho he is. Plenty of other players...that's not the way to make them awesome. Sometimes what's called for is to throw them a soft pitch and set them up for a home run.
Knowing what to do and win is a complicated skill that no one has mastered to perfection in any social setting...that's why the biggest requirement of a friend is to be forgiving when your friends get it wrong. But until recently its been rare to hear it formally expressed as something we should even be trying to do. Trying to do it, however, is what I mean when I say "dedicated to ensuring other people are enjoying the game as much as I am"...and of course one fall out from this is the understanding that sometimes, you can't. Just as there are some people you can't be friends with...(or can be friends with, but can't stand to go to the movies with because they talk through the whole film), there are some people you can't game with either.
Whew...that turned into a bit more of an essay than what I was intending Brett...sorry for distracting from your thread.
Subjective interpretation has never had to be introduced into game mechanics in a 'Ah, it has whatever point value I need it to have' way. We'll leave that to PM'ing though. On with the thread.
Thwaak,
With that zombies example, have you ever tried doing that again? If not, why? Prep heavy? Or perhaps you'd already explored the themes you wanted to?
Quote from: Valamir on June 24, 2006, 10:10:17 PM
That's interesting, and I respect the honesty. You are far from the only player out there, who, if pressed, would frame that dichotomy very similarly.
<SNIP>
A good thread, thwaak. Thanks for launching it.
Thank you! And I should note, that in my attempts to entertain myself first, is not done to the detriment of other players. That is, I don't do things in play that I know will wreck the fun of the other players. In greater detail, when I'm a player, I focus on the elements of the game that are exciting to me. When things don't go 'my way' in game, I'm perfectly happy with that, because I can still find entertainment in playing my character as angry or frustrated or just glum.
I think a lot also has to do with the game group, and the people comprising it. All the gamers I play with, are also the people I tend to socialize with as well. I don't act the same way when playing in a game at a Con, being more reserved and mindful of others and their play style.
You make interesting points though, and it is indeed something I'll have to look more into next time I play. Thanks!
Quote from: Valamir on June 25, 2006, 01:55:07 AM
But to draw this somewhat back on target. I'm not talking about behavior as simple as "don't be a jerk". The part of Brent's post I quoted, in no way suggests he was being a jerk. No I'm talking about much more subtle behaviors...things that we routinely do with our friends just hanging out that makes them feel good. We have friends we smack talk hard core too, and other friends we never do because we know enough about our friends to know what behavior is appreciated and what is not, and we choose (often enough to keep them as friends) to act accordingly. Same thing at the gaming table, which is why a common mantra around here has been to never game with people you wouldn't want to socialize with outside of gaming. To use a recently coined phrase "how do I make the other player awesome" is one way to approach it. The answer is going to be different depending on what player you're talking about and what the situation is. If you're playing with Tony LB, for instance the way you make him awesome is put is put his balls in a red hot vise and give him the opportunity to display how macho he is. Plenty of other players...that's not the way to make them awesome. Sometimes what's called for is to throw them a soft pitch and set them up for a home run.
Just wanted to say this is brilliant, and I am definately going to bring this up at the next game. Thanks!
Quote from: Callan S. on June 26, 2006, 06:24:41 AM
Thwaak,
With that zombies example, have you ever tried doing that again? If not, why? Prep heavy? Or perhaps you'd already explored the themes you wanted to?
Hello Callan,
I did run a sequel to the that particular campaign, but it dealt more with forging a nation out of the ruins left behind after lifting the curse. I ran it in much the same way: I laid out the situation in broad strokes, and the players expected mundane kingdom building only to get a very emotional tale of a mother who had to sacrifice her own child to stop an even greater evil. This set in motion a series of events which the players had to deal with the ramifications thereof on the political level.
And personally, I'd love to give every campaign I run that much attention and detail, but frankly, it was exceptionally prep heavy, and I don't have as much free time now as I did then.
I thought so. Some of the first games I ever ran had nar like themes in them. But after the first session I'd poured my heart out. It wasn't so much the prep workload - hell, I spend ages here on the forge typing away. It was pouring my heart out - it's not something you can do just cause there's a game on saturday.
What do you think would happen to that campaign if the other players were able to pour their hearts out too, into the game, thus taking the prep weight off you? Assuming they'd want to, of course - in my games one of the reasons I got drained was because the players were all take and no give (then complained how dull my games got).
Sorry to jump in to the OT discussion but I propose rules like:
The player of any Klingon character must threaten violence against another person at least once per game session.
This is an in-game act with an in-game raitonale, but it is organised and compelled in game terms.
I agree that the solipsistic gaming approach is unhealthy, even if only because it risks jarring play. But I think the solution has to be systematic; the appropriate contributions have to be established and publicised by some means.
Quote from: Callan S. on June 29, 2006, 12:42:01 AM
I thought so. Some of the first games I ever ran had nar like themes in them. But after the first session I'd poured my heart out. It wasn't so much the prep workload - hell, I spend ages here on the forge typing away. It was pouring my heart out - it's not something you can do just cause there's a game on saturday.
What do you think would happen to that campaign if the other players were able to pour their hearts out too, into the game, thus taking the prep weight off you? Assuming they'd want to, of course - in my games one of the reasons I got drained was because the players were all take and no give (then complained how dull my games got).
Actually they did pour it all out. There was one person who flaked a lot, but the other 4 players were solid, and rearranged their social life to make it to game night. Often, I was merely reacting to them..as if I was the player, and they the GM's. They had invested so much into their characters and the whole thing took on a life of it's own.
Still, I get your point. Many players just sit there waiting to be entertained.
This is my first post.
I also find myself to have very different goals as a player or as a GM in RPGs. As a player:
1. My primary goal as a player is to "get into character" "channel the character" "stay in character" "roleplay." By doing this I experience a kind of loss of self - it's very... unique state of consciousness that I enjoy very much.
2. Being in character is sortof a binary experience. I've either achieved it, or I haven't.
3. The more distractions, ooc considerations, etc. that happen, the harder it is to stay in character.
Because of 2 and 3, there is a threshold of how many distractions I can put up with before losing the in-character state. The first few distractions I can handle with no problem, but after a point the state collapses.
So does this mean I must play selfishly? Yes and no. I am more than happy to put a few restrictions on my behavior - a few won't break my immersion, and there are some restrictions (see below) which are just critically essential to a good game. But after a point, if too many burdens are put on me, my sense of immersion will break down completely.
A specific example of break-down comes when I am asked to do rules lookups, or worse, calls, as a player. Oftentimes I'm the most experienced with the rules at the table, and the GM will ask me for a rule. This is bad, because it snaps me out of my immersion. I'm tempted to instruct GMs here-on to never ask me about rules. I already make a point of trying to never correct a GM on an obviously bad rules call, even if they would want me to. (obviously if I'm with a GM that wouldn't want me to make a rules correction, I wouldn't.)
As mentioned above, however, I can abide by some restrictions on my play:
1. Never kill/betray another PC unless I am absolutely sure the PLAYER behind that PC would be cool with it.
2. Never totally derail/disrupt the plot in such a way that I bring the story to a screeching halt.
3. If possible, try to bring as many other players into the action as possible. For example, if Alfred is talking to the GM, and I and Bob are sitting idly by, start roleplaying with Bob to keep us both engaged and in-character (even if chatting in the context of the story seems inappropriate)
4. Don't Block (in the improvisational acting sense)
5. Don't hog the spotlight - instead, try to empower other players
Etc. Basic stuff. The little things that don't take too much effort but can make a game run much better. (BTW I agree that rules-of-thumb really should be put in introductions of all RPGs for new players.)
However, at some point, I've got to focus on just staying in character. If you asked me to spend every moment concerned about the welfare of other players as a player, my immersion will break down completely. And this is catastrophic, because that is the primary reason why I play the game.
Now as a GM, I just don't have the Mad Roleplayin Skillz it takes to shift from character to character, make rules calls, set the scene, and stay immersed. It's hopeless for me. So I give up, and focus on making the players happy. In a sense, my players get to roleplay, but I don't. I do work. When I portray NPCs, my players usually tell me I do a fine job at being convincing to them, but I gain no immersion enjoyment from doing it. Since immersion is impossible, I try to extract some joy from telling a story, but most of my fun as a GM comes from altruistic/voyeuristic experience of making my friends happy.
What does this mean for taste in games? As a player, I want the game to be 100% completely invisible. I want to never touch a rule book - preferably I never want to touch a die or a plot-point chit. I just want to roleplay. If there are any mechanics, shunt it all onto the GM.
But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. So the perfect game for me as a GM would find ways to somehow move decision making authority to the players, hopefully without causing them to break out of character.
(And as a matter of personal taste, I have zero interest in the game aspect of a paper and pencil RPG)
QuoteWhat does this mean for taste in games? As a player, I want the game to be 100% completely invisible. I want to never touch a rule book - preferably I never want to touch a die or a plot-point chit. I just want to roleplay. If there are any mechanics, shunt it all onto the GM.
But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. .
How do you reconcile the double standard?
As a GM you want the players to shoulder some of the burden for you...but as a player you're unwilling to shoulder any of it yourself...
...that doesn't sound entirely kosher to me
QuoteHowever, at some point, I've got to focus on just staying in character. If you asked me to spend every moment concerned about the welfare of other players as a player, my immersion will break down completely. And this is catastrophic, because that is the primary reason why I play the game.
I'll save my obervations on this for another thread if you'd care to start one, or spare you if you'd rather not.
Quote from: Valamir on June 30, 2006, 06:54:34 PM
QuoteWhat does this mean for taste in games? As a player, I want the game to be 100% completely invisible. I want to never touch a rule book - preferably I never want to touch a die or a plot-point chit. I just want to roleplay. If there are any mechanics, shunt it all onto the GM.
But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. .
How do you reconcile the double standard?
As a GM you want the players to shoulder some of the burden for you...but as a player you're unwilling to shoulder any of it yourself...
...that doesn't sound entirely kosher to me
My point is a game that makes me as a GM happy is not the perfect game to make me as a player happy. I suspect that might be true for alot of people. This is a positive claim, not a normative one. Perhaps my tastes make me a bad person, but they are nevertheless my tastes.
Although the normative statement "I ought to like the same game as a GM as a player" is probally both too weak and too strong. It's too weak because the GM should take into account what his players in fact like, not what hypothetical clones of him might like. GMs run games for other people, not for their clones. If, for example, I run a game for a bunch of people who, unlike me, when playing love to make setting decisions on the fly and play supporting characters at the same time as their primary character, then a game that shunts responsibility to the players makes everybody happy.
It's too strong because GM might overall have more (or less) fun then the players. If, for example, the GM tends to have less fun than the players, then it might be fair (from a maximize the welfare of the worst off person perspective) to pick a system that favors the GM over the players.
Quote from: cydmab on June 30, 2006, 04:51:48 PM
But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. So the perfect game for me as a GM would find ways to somehow move decision making authority to the players, hopefully without causing them to break out of character.
What is your name, cydmab?
As GM, do you care if your players are 100% in character? (In the immersive sense you're talking about.)
Do you generally play with other people with the same immersive Sim agenda you have? Do you have someone who loves to GM, or is it dished out in rotation like a chore?
Do you care about using your character to push the plot? Author stance seems to me to be incompatible with what sounds like your pure Sim agenda, but I don't want to make assumptions.
It's interesting -- I don't think you and I would get along as players in the same game at all. I don't mean that to cast aspersions, but in the sense that I think my play style, which includes lots of third person commentary and kibbitzing, would drive you crazy. And possibly your purism vice versa. I'm a crappy actor, and I don't generally get into that part of the game more than a few minutes at a time.
I might be able to GM for you, though. Hard to say.
Quote from: colin roald on June 30, 2006, 08:02:47 PM
Quote from: cydmab on June 30, 2006, 04:51:48 PM
But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. So the perfect game for me as a GM would find ways to somehow move decision making authority to the players, hopefully without causing them to break out of character.
What is your name, cydmab?
As GM, do you care if your players are 100% in character? (In the immersive sense you're talking about.)
Do you generally play with other people with the same immersive Sim agenda you have? Do you have someone who loves to GM, or is it dished out in rotation like a chore?
Do you care about using your character to push the plot? Author stance seems to me to be incompatible with what sounds like your pure Sim agenda, but I don't want to make assumptions.
It's interesting -- I don't think you and I would get along as players in the same game at all. I don't mean that to cast aspersions, but in the sense that I think my play style, which includes lots of third person commentary and kibbitzing, would drive you crazy. And possibly your purism vice versa. I'm a crappy actor, and I don't generally get into that part of the game more than a few minutes at a time.
I might be able to GM for you, though. Hard to say.
Sorry, name is William.
If I'm GMing, I don't care for my own sake per say if people aren't immersed, because my immersion is already doomed if I'm GMing. I do care if all my players except one are in hard-core immersion mode, and the other person is being extremely ooc, since that's typically a bad dynamic. that is, the uncooperative person tends to make all the other players unhappy, and as a GM, it's my function to make everyone happy. So I'll try my best to figure out the root cause of the odd-person's issue and correct it. My group is heavily on the immersion side (although they aren't my clones, because they care about gaming too) so this only happens when one person is being very lazy, or is being distracted by outside things, or we have a new player. I'll try to identify the root cause and administer a correction as appropriate - lazy people get moral suasion, outside distractions get crushed or the player is asked to leave till its resolved, and new players generally get extra training and encouragement from all of us.
If everyone is out of immersion mode, then I go with the flow.
As far as everyone being sim (in the individual immersion sense - I'm not in the Virtual World sense. I could care less if everything was made up on the fly and the laws of physics change from day to day) it's a good question. I try to know my players needs and wants, but a) people change b) I'm faliable, so it's possible I misjudge people. For example, when 3rd edition d&d came out, I decided to try running a straight up dungeon crawl adventure, and there was alot of expressed interest, and I thought my players would like some mindless gamist fun. It was a catastrophe - people complained there wasn't enough roleplaying and storytelling. They didn't like so much action. That said, one of the most well-recieved rule changes I ever made was to completely abandon all character generation rules. For almost every game I run now I say "Make up your character any way you like - I'll give you some suggested guidelines and check it over to make sure it's not a Mary Sue or otherwise unplayable, but otherwise anything goes." On the other hand, only one other person in the group applies the rule when he GMs.
4 out of 6 of us GM on occasion. The others rarely do it however. Mostly due to lack of confidence. For example, one person runs great games, but he only runs them after he does tremendous prep work, so he rarely has the time - he refuses to run improv games.
Pushing the plot when playing... it's hard to say. There's a wierd social dynamic that discourges me from doing that. That is, since I'm the senior GM, people kinda want to defer to me, but also the other GMs lack confidence, and I don't want to take over their game, risking crushing their confidence. They also don't usually leave alot of openings for it, since they tend to play fairly traditionalist and keep close to the rules. Rulesets we use (D&D and GURPS) don't have good built-in tools for author stance by players, and the other GMs are too cautious to innovate. I have suggested things like "why don't you ignore the rules and let us just do blah automatically" although usually that's for pacing reasons. Maybe I would take more author stance if circumstances were more permissive.
I can say that I'm much more likely to push plot when my character is not in the scene, or I've been forced out of character by circumstances. If I'm currently in character, I'll only push plot if I can do it while preserving mostly in character status.
Also BETWEEN GAMES I'll push plot and tone and theme like crazy, both by talking with the GM informally between sessions and in character descriptions. On the other hand, I can't think of any examples IN PLAY where I've done ADVANCED story manipulation (like trying to get a major NPC to have more of a character arc, or change/reinforce the mood/theme). These things are just way too hard for me to do and be immersed in a character.
If I'm playing (as opposed to GMing), I do get annoyed if other players break character. I will try of course to help them get back into character. If there's a game I have a high expectation that most of the players will not be in character, I won't play at all unless I have reason to believe the story will be incredible. Everyone likes a good story.
And a question for you: do the players around you encourage you to go into immersion mode? It's a lot easier to submerge oneself into character if everyone else around you is doing it, and (VERY IMPORTANT) they take the time to engage with you in character. I make no claims I'm any good at it myself. Hell, the reason I have special tastes in system as a player is because its hard for me, I need alot of support from other players and lack of distraction from the system to pull it off. If I were some super-roleplayer-god I'd be able to immerse myself in a crowd of munchkin trogledytes.
Or do you simply not enjoy it, even when the opportunity presents itself?
One other thing, it's possible to be (or at least seem) to be in character, but not in the immersive sense I mean. That is, it's possible to "fake it" enough for story purposes and to be a foil for other players to play off off. I do it all the time as a GM. If I'm being heavily distracted I also do it as a player sometimes. I don't derive much personal satisfaction from being in fake-mode, but its good enough to drive story forward and not distract other players.
Also to be clear, I'm sure all my acting is Ham to the nth extreme. I've never watched myself on videotape to see just how bad it is... and I don't think I ever will because I'd be too scared.